Ugly Effigy of Queen on Aussie coins
George Dragicevic
On Wed, 07 Jan 1998 05:18:26 +1100, Darren <DMag...@milo.uws.edu.au>
wrote:
>The latest tactic of the Australian Republican Movement to
>encourage the Australian people to vote for a republic
>in the year 2000 is to have a severely un-flattering
>effigy of the Queen drawn for the back of all Australian
>coins! The effigy in question has the queen side-on with
>absolutely huge double chins and very deep wrinkles.
>It seems in unlikely coincidence that the portrait of the
>queen on the back of our coins has only been changed
>two or three times since 1966, to be suddenly changed
>again now - 2 years from a likely vote on a republic.
>The only conclusion that is sensible is that the choice
>of an ugly effigy is a DISGUSTING, SICK and
>DESPERATE move by REPUBLICANS to manipulate
>the Australian public towards sharing their anti-Queen,
>anti-British sentiment.....
>
>Why doesn't the Australian Republican Movement
>start by telling us how the current system is failing
>the Australian people rather than engaging in such
>gutter tactics?
>
The ARM has no say as to the image of the Queen of England on our
coins. This is about the fourth change to the coins. As I understand
it the Queen herself has to approve the image of herself appearing on
our coins, so your arguments are totally groundless.
regards,
George Dragicevic
Melbourne PC User Group
Darren
David Moss
> The ARM has no say as to the image of the Queen of England on our
> coins.
But their supporters do.
This is about the fourth change to the coins.
Hmm I seem to remember only one change to the image of QE11, made during
the height of the Keating Labor government.
As I understand
> it the Queen herself has to approve the image of herself appearing on
> our coins,
Can you imagine the publicity coup if she refused to allow a change
proposed by the Australian government ?
so your arguments are totally groundless.
Not in my opinion. Even I don't stoop to publishing unflattering images of
my opponents, unless they demand I remove the flattering ones !
David Moss,
personal opinion only
http://www.adfa.oz.au/~adm/politics for Oz Politics resources.
Rod Pinna
In article <34B2B377...@adfa.oz.au>, David Moss <d-m...@adfa.oz.au> wrote:
>> The ARM has no say as to the image of the Queen of England on our
>> coins.
>
>But their supporters do.
>
>Not in my opinion. Even I don't stoop to publishing unflattering images of
>my opponents, unless they demand I remove the flattering ones !
>
now supporters of a republic?!??!!? The PM himself? You are living in
some weird fantasy world on this issue, aren't you David?
Rod Pinna
(rpi...@XcivilX.uwa.edu.au Remove the X for email)
Paul Gill
someone wrote:
> > The ARM has no say as to the image of the Queen of England on our
> > coins.
>
> But their supporters do.
>
<snip>
Maybe the supporters of the Essendon football club have a say in what the
image of the Queen looks like too. Does this mean its a plot to manipulate the
AFL competition?
of course the Queen gets a say in what image is used. She has several to
choose from and selects the one that she prefers. So she isnt rejecting one
put up by the Australian people thus causing a scandal. She just gets half a
dozen images and she (or her assistant staffer or whomever) says "yeah, i like
that one".
There is NO ARM conspiracy. Do you believe that our current PM would allow
such a decision to be influenced by Republicans? grow up.
George Dragicevic
On Wed, 07 Jan 1998 09:43:03 +1100, David Moss <d-m...@adfa.oz.au>
wrote:
>> The ARM has no say as to the image of the Queen of England on our
>> coins.
>
>But their supporters do.
>
>This is about the fourth change to the coins.
>
>Hmm I seem to remember only one change to the image of QE11, made during
>the height of the Keating Labor government.
>
Wrong! Have a look at pre decimal coins as well. There was the
original in the 50s, a change in the 60s sometime, and the one during
the Keating government. Maybe a coin expert could confirm this.
Peter Butler
And which side are you on? The new image has been designed to provide a more
contemporary image of a woman who is now 70 years old. As she is a monarch
and not a Hollywood icon, she has wrinkles. TO suggest that the ARM has any
involvement in coin design is one of the sillier things I have seen suggested
as part of the grand republican conspiracy theories. If the ARM were to get
involved in redesigning coins, I would expect the new design to feature an
Australian face, rather than the face of the British monarch who they are
campaigning to have replaced by an Australian Head of State.
Personally, I think that when we become a republic we should replace the
Queens head with the Australian Coat of Arms, rather than by the Presidents
head, which is one of the other possible scenarios.
And the republican movement is not about changing the whole system, which is
basically rpetty good, just about taking what residual power the Queen of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland still holds and putting it unequivocally in
the hands of Australian citizens. I suspect that a significant majority of
Australians agree-after all, didn'ty Republican candidates outnumber
Monarchist candidates by two to one in the elected delegates to the
Convention?
It seems that the closer we get to the inevitable change, the more desperate
the arguments get.
After a short break, and a few weeks of site work away from the computer, this
newsgroup is continuing its decline into racist garbage, crap conspiracy
theories, homophobia and abuse. I may wander back from time to time, but
frankly it isn't worth the effort much any more. Sad but true. Maybe it
would be better if it were moderated to cut out the more extreme crap and
the spams, if somebody had the time and commitment to make the effort.
Happy New Year to all of you anyway, it may be an interesting one with the
convention only a few weeks away and an election likely later in the year. I
personally hope it isn't fought over Wik, not because I am scared of the
outcome of such an election-I think the vast majority of Australians will vote
on the basis of a broad range of issues, not just one-but because of the
further damage that will be done to our international reputation by the
actions and words of the fringe elements likely to crawl out from under their
rocks to participate in the campaign. If there must be a double dissolution,
I hope it is a different trigger.
I may be back-but don't hold your breath. At the moment, this group and
soc.culture.australian are just too full of ignorant offensive shitheads to
make it worthwhile.
Peter Butler
"If you do not believe that a single one of your fellow Australian
citizens has the intelligence, wisdom, grace and dignity to be the
Head of State of their own country, maybe you should find a country
to live in where you can respect your fellow citizens more."
Peter Butler 30 Oct 97
Peter Mackay
In article <691ct2$3vn$1...@wyrm.its.uow.edu.au>,
nos...@i.dont.want.to.know.com (Peter Butler) wrote:
} And the republican movement is not about changing the whole system, which
is
} basically rpetty good, just about taking what residual power the Queen of
} Great Britain and Northern Ireland still holds and putting it
unequivocally in
} the hands of Australian citizens.
What power would this be, i wonder? She has the power to rubber-stamp the
Prime Minister's choice of Governor-General but that's as far as it goes.
The Governor-General has the real power, as Gough Whitlam found out.
~ m
u U Cheers!
\|
|> -Peter Mackay
/ \ pete...@netinfo.com.au
_\ /_
George Dragicevic
On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 03:19:42 +1100, Darren <DMag...@milo.uws.edu.au>
wrote:
>claim that pro-republican persons have been behind the commissioning
>of the new ugly effigy as an attempt to sway public opinion towards a
>pro-republican position.
A very long bow Darren.
George Dragicevic
>The design of the monarch's image has been changed for no obvious
>reason only once before (1985) in the history of Australian coins.
>Every other design change has been predicated by a change of monarch:
>Edward VII: 1910; George V: 1911-1936; George VI: 1938-1952;
>Elizabeth II: 1953- ; with a change in QEII in 1966 for the move
>to decimal coins.
>
No obvious reason???? The woman is getting older, so it is appropriate
that if we must have a foreign monarch on our coins, it should be a
true and current representation of her. Do the English also change the
image on their coins, stamps and notes over time??
Darren
George Dragicevic wrote:
> regards,
>
> George Dragicevic
> Melbourne PC User Group
If we restrict ourselves to the decimal era - 1966 onwards - there has
been only two previous designs for the image of the queen. The one
decimal coins started with in 1966: the queen with an intricate crown,
no jewellery and roman-looking gown draped over her shoulders.
This design was revised in 1985 to the design with a "chunky" crown,
earrings and a necklace.
The design of the monarch's image has been changed for no obvious
reason only once before (1985) in the history of Australian coins.
Every other design change has been predicated by a change of monarch:
Edward VII: 1910; George V: 1911-1936; George VI: 1938-1952;
Elizabeth II: 1953- ; with a change in QEII in 1966 for the move
to decimal coins.
I would also like to correct a mis-apprehension that has stemmed from
my initial post on this subject. I was not claiming that the political party
called "Australian Republican Movement" was responsible for the choice
of the design - this would be an obviously preposterous suggestion. I do
claim that pro-republican persons have been behind the commissioning
of the new ugly effigy as an attempt to sway public opinion towards a
pro-republican position.
Regards, Darren
Rod Pinna
geo...@melbpc.org.au (George Dragicevic) wrote:
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>No obvious reason???? The woman is getting older, so it is appropriate
>that if we must have a foreign monarch on our coins, it should be a
>true and current representation of her. Do the English also change the
>image on their coins, stamps and notes over time??
>regards,
>
I haven't mentioned/asked this before, but for some reason I'm under
the impression that the change is of the portrait comes from the
queen, rather than the Australian government, and the Aust. government
follow as a matter of courtesy.
I could be totally wrong on this point though.
Neil Malley
> I do
>claim that pro-republican persons have been behind the commissioning
>of the new ugly effigy as an attempt to sway public opinion towards a
>pro-republican position.
>
>Regards, Darren
>
I agree dammit and I have also noticed that the gay community have
purposely used the term "Queen" to place Her Royal Highness into
disrepute.
Actually, now that you mention it, that Gerry Connolly guy should be
arrested for treason for doing such unflattering impersonations of my
Queen.
It's all a big Republican/Multi-National Corporation/Chicken Flu
conspiracy I reckon.
N.
Peter Mackay
In article <34B4FC9E...@milo.uws.edu.au>,
Darren <DMag...@milo.uws.edu.au> wrote:
Of course, Victoria spent fifty years looking youthful...
John Wedgwood Pound
George Dragicevic wrote:
>
> On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 03:19:42 +1100, Darren <DMag...@milo.uws.edu.au>
> wrote:
>
> >reason only once before (1985) in the history of Australian coins.
> >Every other design change has been predicated by a change of monarch:
> >Edward VII: 1910; George V: 1911-1936; George VI: 1938-1952;
> >Elizabeth II: 1953- ; with a change in QEII in 1966 for the move
> >to decimal coins.
> >
> that if we must have a foreign monarch on our coins, it should be a
> true and current representation of her. Do the English also change the
> image on their coins, stamps and notes over time??
>
> George Dragicevic
> Melbourne PC User Group
Yes the British do, over tome, though perhaps only once in the lif-time
of the monarch. I am not sure to be honest. However in England we have
had a recent spate of new coin issues (different sizes etc), the 5, 10,
and 50 pence most recently, and the opportunity was not taken to change
the image then. It does seem plausible that pro-republicans may have
used an ugly image as a ploy - after all, our Labour Government is
planning to remove the Queen altogether when we have a common European
Currency; and this Government will probably do away with the monarchy as
well -if so, how would you like a Resident Queen in Australia?
John Wedgwood-Pound
Bryan Palmer
>how would you like a Resident Queen in Australia?
We have got thousands in Darlinghurst. Why would we want another?
_______________________________________________________________
Bryan Palmer
http://www.tip.net.au/~bpalmer/
Russell Dovey
Darren wrote:
>
> George Dragicevic wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 07 Jan 1998 09:43:03 +1100, David Moss <d-m...@adfa.oz.au>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> The ARM has no say as to the image of the Queen of England on our
> > >> coins.
> > >
> > >But their supporters do.
> > >
> > >This is about the fourth change to the coins.
> > >
> > >Hmm I seem to remember only one change to the image of QE11, made during
> > >the height of the Keating Labor government.
> > >
> > Wrong! Have a look at pre decimal coins as well. There was the
> > original in the 50s, a change in the 60s sometime, and the one during
> > the Keating government. Maybe a coin expert could confirm this.
> >
> > George Dragicevic
> > Melbourne PC User Group
>
> been only two previous designs for the image of the queen. The one
> decimal coins started with in 1966: the queen with an intricate crown,
> no jewellery and roman-looking gown draped over her shoulders.
> This design was revised in 1985 to the design with a "chunky" crown,
> earrings and a necklace.
>
> reason only once before (1985) in the history of Australian coins.
> Every other design change has been predicated by a change of monarch:
> Edward VII: 1910; George V: 1911-1936; George VI: 1938-1952;
> Elizabeth II: 1953- ; with a change in QEII in 1966 for the move
> to decimal coins.
>
> my initial post on this subject. I was not claiming that the political party
> called "Australian Republican Movement" was responsible for the choice
> claim that pro-republican persons have been behind the commissioning
> of the new ugly effigy as an attempt to sway public opinion towards a
> pro-republican position.
>
> Regards, Darren
I think it's a bit presumptuous to say that it's ugly. I have seen it,
and have not run away in disgust, or pointed at it and said "Oh my GOD!
The queen is an old lady and I never knew!!!" I expect most people will
have a similar reaction. If this is an attempt by the republican
movement, it's not working very well, and is likely even to backfire on
them, so you shouldn't be pointing it out, unless you want to undermine
your own movement.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
"Understanding of our fellow human beings becomes fruitful
only when it is sustained by sympathetic feelings in joy
and sorrow." - Albert Einstein, who always inspires me.
To get your business on the Net, click here:
http://www.virtualisys.com/vr/rdovey/ for the most affordable
and easiest way.
------------------------------------------------------------
John P Darcy
David Moss wrote:
>
> > The ARM has no say as to the image of the Queen of England on our
> > coins.
>
> But their supporters do.
You mean Her Majesty?
Incidentally, after the change to a Republic (inevitable, whether in 3
or 30 years), whose mug do you propose putting on our coins? I have a
sensible answer, but I'd like to hear others' ...
--
(another two cents poorer) ........................
/___ __/ | \ John P Darcy \
/ / | | | | \ | plei...@nlc.net.au \
/ // \| | | | | | / | |/\ / __\ \ / /
\ \/ /|-- | \ \| \ \ | |_/ |(-- | / | |__ \ \_/ /
\__/ \_|/|_||_|_||_||____/ \_|_|_| \__/ \_ /
http://www.nlc.net.au/~pleiades/ / /
"I could be the Walrus, I'd still have to bum /
\ rides off of people." - Ferris Bueller /
\_________________________________________/_/
Peter Butler
Note: uk.politics deleted from followups
In article <B0DAC9DC...@betty-p07.netinfo.net>, pete...@netinfo.com.aus
>In article <691ct2$3vn$1...@wyrm.its.uow.edu.au>,
>nos...@i.dont.want.to.know.com (Peter Butler) wrote:
>
>} And the republican movement is not about changing the whole system, which
>is
>} basically rpetty good, just about taking what residual power the Queen of
>
>} Great Britain and Northern Ireland still holds and putting it
>unequivocally in
>} the hands of Australian citizens.
>
>What power would this be, i wonder? She has the power to rubber-stamp the
>Prime Minister's choice of Governor-General but that's as far as it goes.
Funny how you took the word "residual" and changed it to "vast" Peter,
although it seems to fit in well with your general bias against sensible
Constitutional Change to make the position of the Queen unambiguously zero.
I note you make no comment on the main thrust of the debate, the outrageous
assertion that a decision by the mint (or whoever makes such decisions) to
update the Queens portrait on our coins is some kind of republican conspiracy.
>
>The Governor-General has the real power, as Gough Whitlam found out.
So does the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
have any power, as specified under the Constitution? Or none? When asked to
"rubberstamp" things, does she exercise any free will, or is she merely an
approving amchine which does what it is told? If she does not exercise any
discretion when approving the actions of the GG (which are done in HER name,
not ours), then removing her from the picture totally should have no effect.
Apparently you don't agree with this, as you voted for ACM-Yes Monarchy
according to a post of yours sometime last year. If she DOES exercise
discretion on whether to approve, then surely she does still have power. You
can't have it both ways, although you continually try to do so. This is the
main reason I am in favour of a change to a Republic-to make the situation
absolutely clear that all power in and over Australia and its citizens is
derived from the will of the people, not the hereditary powers of one European
family. I believe that hereditary power and modern democracy are mutually
exclusive notions, and that our Constitution should be amended to remove all
references to the Royal family of another country, and to change the oath to
make MPs swear allegiance to _us_, the people of Australia, and our laws and
customs, rather than somebody elses Queen. I am still unable to think of a
single good reason why any Australian would think otherwise, although I freely
admit that many do. I think the Constitution should be the basis on which the
legal and political system of the country operates, not a historical record
of how it was 100 years ago. The current document apparently vests a large
amount of power in a foreign monarch-hopefully this colonial anachronism will
soon be gone. Sadly, a few other colonial anachronisms and historical
anomalies seem determined to oppose such a change by any argument, however
vacuous.
But I don't know why I bothered arguing with you, you seem to think that what
the Constitution says is irrelevant anyway if you truly believe that the only
power vested in the Queen is to "rubberstamp" the GGs appointment. I thought
it took a referendum to amend the Constitution, your opinion, based on past
arguments seems to be that it has been amended by the Royal Powers Act and,
more alarming, a _decision_ by the Queen not to become involved in our
affairs. I wonder why you would continue to oppose entrenching such
"amendments" in the actual document? But frankly, I don't care any more. This
sort of blind, stubborn nonsense is one of the things driving me away from
this group. Don't expect an answer to any followup you may choose to send, I
don't think I can stand another year of reading your biased crap.
Peter Butler
"So long and thanks for all the fish" Douglas Adams, Life the Universe and
Everything (I think)
Peter Butler
In article <34B4FC9E...@milo.uws.edu.au>, Darren <DMag...@milo.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>George Dragicevic wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Jan 1998 09:43:03 +1100, David Moss <d-m...@adfa.oz.au>
>>
>> >> The ARM has no say as to the image of the Queen of England on our
>> >> coins.
>> >
>> >But their supporters do.
>> >
>> >
>> >Hmm I seem to remember only one change to the image of QE11, made during
>> >the height of the Keating Labor government.
>> >
>> Wrong! Have a look at pre decimal coins as well. There was the
>> original in the 50s, a change in the 60s sometime, and the one during
>> the Keating government. Maybe a coin expert could confirm this.
>> regards,
>>
>> George Dragicevic
>> Melbourne PC User Group
>
> If we restrict ourselves to the decimal era - 1966 onwards - there has
>been only two previous designs for the image of the queen. The one
>decimal coins started with in 1966: the queen with an intricate crown,
>no jewellery and roman-looking gown draped over her shoulders.
>This design was revised in 1985 to the design with a "chunky" crown,
>earrings and a necklace.
>
>The design of the monarch's image has been changed for no obvious
>reason only once before (1985) in the history of Australian coins.
>Every other design change has been predicated by a change of monarch:
>Edward VII: 1910; George V: 1911-1936; George VI: 1938-1952;
>Elizabeth II: 1953- ; with a change in QEII in 1966 for the move
>to decimal coins.
>
Of course, you noticed when compiling your list that no other monarch has held
office over us for a long enough period to make such updates necessary.
>I would also like to correct a mis-apprehension that has stemmed from
>my initial post on this subject. I was not claiming that the political party
>called "Australian Republican Movement" was responsible for the choice
>of the design - this would be an obviously preposterous suggestion. I do
>claim that pro-republican persons have been behind the commissioning
>of the new ugly effigy as an attempt to sway public opinion towards a
>pro-republican position.
I would like to correct your misapprehension. I don't think any republican
cares much what particular image of the Queen is on our coins - we are more
interested in making the necessary Constitutional changes to remove her from
any role in our political system. Personally, I think it is a waste of money
to change the image when hopefully it will not be too much longer before she
is no longer Head of State and therefore would no longer be appropriate as a
symbol on our coins. I think the fact that we are an independant nation
perfectly capable of running our own country without the help of the British
Royal family is sufficient reason to change. I think if more people read the
Constitution and saw the power which it apparently vests in the Queen there
would be even higher support than there is already for the change. As for the
effigy being "ugly" I suggest that you are simply being "Age-ist" in not being
able to cope with the fact that your beloved sovereign is now a woman of 70
(or thereabouts), not the woman she was in 1966.
This is only more evidence of the nonsense which the monarchists are reduced
to. None of them can come up with a single valid reason why the Queen of
Great Britain should be our Head of State, so they are reduced to crap
conspiracy theories.
Peter Butler
Peter Mackay
In article <6945ti$kj5$2...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>,
he...@there.com (Rod Pinna) wrote:
} geo...@melbpc.org.au (George Dragicevic) wrote:
}
} >wrote:
} >
} >
}
} >>
} >No obvious reason???? The woman is getting older, so it is appropriate
} >that if we must have a foreign monarch on our coins, it should be a
} >true and current representation of her. Do the English also change the
} >image on their coins, stamps and notes over time??
} >regards,
} >
} I haven't mentioned/asked this before, but for some reason I'm under
} the impression that the change is of the portrait comes from the
} queen, rather than the Australian government, and the Aust. government
} follow as a matter of courtesy.
}
} I could be totally wrong on this point though.
As I understand it, the Queen's image is updated every decade or so to
reflect the reality of the Queen's aging. She is no longer the exquisite
young Queen that captured the hearts of Menzies and the millions of
Australians who stood in the streets to watch her in the 1954 Royal Tour.
Forty-odd years on, she is a grandmother with fifty years of marriage under
her belt. Dunno about you, but I'd rather live in a country where we
recognise the truth.
I don't for a moment believe that the new image is the creation of some
republican conspiracy.
Peter Mackay
In article <69c02j$nvf$1...@wyrm.its.uow.edu.au>,
nos...@i.dont.want.to.know.com (Peter Butler) wrote:
} This is only more evidence of the nonsense which the monarchists are
reduced
} to. None of them can come up with a single valid reason why the Queen of
} Great Britain should be our Head of State, so they are reduced to crap
} conspiracy theories.
The conspiracy is crap, as is the notion that the Queen of Great Britain is
our Head of State. We have the Queen of Australia, who holds a purely
ceremonial position, and if republicans can't deal with this truth, then I
would be extremely wary of any product they purport to sell.
If we must discuss the topic, let's be honest about it, hey?
Peter Mackay
In article <69bvbj$n8k$1...@wyrm.its.uow.edu.au>,
nos...@i.dont.want.to.know.com (Peter Butler) wrote:
} Note: uk.politics deleted from followups
} In article <B0DAC9DC...@betty-p07.netinfo.net>,
pete...@netinfo.com.aus
} (Peter Mackay) wrote:
} >In article <691ct2$3vn$1...@wyrm.its.uow.edu.au>,
} >nos...@i.dont.want.to.know.com (Peter Butler) wrote:
} >
} >} And the republican movement is not about changing the whole system,
which
} >is
} >} basically rpetty good, just about taking what residual power the Queen
of
} >
} >} Great Britain and Northern Ireland still holds and putting it
} >unequivocally in
} >} the hands of Australian citizens.
} >
} >What power would this be, i wonder? She has the power to rubber-stamp
the
} >Prime Minister's choice of Governor-General but that's as far as it
goes.
}
} Funny how you took the word "residual" and changed it to "vast" Peter,
A troll, to catch a fish. Seems to have worked. You want to answer the
question, Butler? What power does the Queen have?
And why do you see fit to muddy the waters by talking about "The Queen of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? Wearing this crown, her role in
Australian affairs is unambiguously zero.
As Queen of Australia, she appoints the Governor-General on the advice of
our Prime Minister.
} although it seems to fit in well with your general bias against sensible
} Constitutional Change to make the position of the Queen unambiguously
zero.
What bias would this be? I am not opposed at all to removing the Queen. I
am opposed to either having a popular election for what is, after all, a
position with vast but rarely used powers, and I am even more opposed to
buying a pig in a poke. If we lose the Queen, we must find another way of
appointing the Governor-General, and it is this question which must be
answered.
For my own part, I think Tim Fischer's suggestion is the best I've heard.
Give the Queen's only real power to the Chief Justice of the High Court,
who can then rubber-stamp the Prime Minister's nomination. The only
difficulty is that it makes it difficult for HCCJ to become
Governor-General, but I think we can all live with that.
} I note you make no comment on the main thrust of the debate, the
outrageous
} assertion that a decision by the mint (or whoever makes such decisions)
to
} update the Queens portrait on our coins is some kind of republican
conspiracy.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Queen is getting older and
her image should change to reflect reality. This has happened before and if
it happens again there is no reason to suppose that it is a republican
conspiracy in 1998 any more than it was in 1966 or 1984.
}
}
} >
} >The Governor-General has the real power, as Gough Whitlam found out.
}
} So does the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland
} have any power, as specified under the Constitution?
The Queen of the Constitution is Victoria, cobber. Do try to keep up. The
Queen of today's world is the Queen of Australia, don't you agree?
} Or none? When asked to
} "rubberstamp" things, does she exercise any free will, or is she merely
an
} approving amchine which does what it is told?
She acts as advised. We proved this in 1930, when King George V disagreed
with the advice of James Scullin, but had no option other than to appoint
Sir Isaac Isaacs.
} If she does not exercise any
} discretion when approving the actions of the GG (which are done in HER
name,
} not ours), then removing her from the picture totally should have no
effect.
Well it would, as Sir William Deane would have to be replaced eventually.
} Apparently you don't agree with this, as you voted for ACM-Yes Monarchy
} according to a post of yours sometime last year.
I'm sorry? You must be making this up. I voted for no such party.
Nor did I vote the ACM ticket. I voted below the line.
} If she DOES exercise
} discretion on whether to approve, then surely she does still have power.
The Queen of Australia is the only person with the power to appoint the
Governor-General. Whether she has any discretion is debatable. I'll say
that she has the discretion to act without advice, but that if she did so,
she would be out of a job, so far as Australia is concerned.
} You
} can't have it both ways, although you continually try to do so.
You seem to think discretion equates to power. Not so.
} This is the
} main reason I am in favour of a change to a Republic-to make the
situation
} absolutely clear that all power in and over Australia and its citizens is
} derived from the will of the people, not the hereditary powers of one
European
} family.
By any measure, we are a republic already, and the power of the Queen is
notional. If she acted without advice then we would take steps to prevent a
recurrence. Don't you agree? Or would you tug the forelock?
} I believe that hereditary power and modern democracy are mutually
} exclusive notions, and that our Constitution should be amended to remove
all
} references to the Royal family of another country, and to change the oath
to
} make MPs swear allegiance to _us_, the people of Australia, and our laws
and
} customs, rather than somebody elses Queen. I am still unable to think of
a
} single good reason why any Australian would think otherwise, although I
freely
} admit that many do.
Lady Flo, maybe. But you are merely confusing yourself if you pretend that
the Queen is not ours. Be honest. She is Queen of Australia.
} I think the Constitution should be the basis on which the
} legal and political system of the country operates, not a historical
record
} of how it was 100 years ago.
Perhaps you might care to persuade the Yanks to give up their Constitution,
more than twice as old as ours?
} The current document apparently vests a large
} amount of power in a foreign monarch-hopefully this colonial anachronism
will
} soon be gone.
The colonial anachronism vanished a long time ago. News of the Statute of
Westminster has yet to reach republicans, it seems, who apparently still
believe that it is only we recalcitrant Australians still propping up the
British Empire.
Let's face it, Butler, the sun set on the British Empire a long time ago.
About time you faced up to the current reality, which is that Australia is
a sovereign and independent nation in every way.
} Sadly, a few other colonial anachronisms and historical
} anomalies seem determined to oppose such a change by any argument,
however
} vacuous.
Such as your own, you mean? Start being honest with your readers and I
might start giving you a bit of respect.
Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Australia? YES/NO
}
} But I don't know why I bothered arguing with you, you seem to think that
what
} the Constitution says is irrelevant anyway if you truly believe that the
only
} power vested in the Queen is to "rubberstamp" the GGs appointment.
Well I'm sorry, but what the Constitution says is important. However, to
read it in isolation is ludicruous, and if you want to ignore the
convention that says that the Queen acts under advice, you need to pull
your head out of your bum and face reality.
} I thought
} it took a referendum to amend the Constitution, your opinion, based on
past
} arguments seems to be that it has been amended by the Royal Powers Act
????? How on earth do you work this out? How does the RPA amend the
Constitution? The Queen is unable to exercise the *Constitutional* powers
of the Governor-General no matter how you slice and dice it.
The RPA merely allows her to exercise the *statutory* powers of the
Governor-General, and she does so as the Governor-General's representative,
as he can and has continued to exercise his statutory powers even if the
Queen is present in Australia.
} and,
} more alarming, a _decision_ by the Queen not to become involved in our
} affairs. I wonder why you would continue to oppose entrenching such
} "amendments" in the actual document?
Do I?
} But frankly, I don't care any more. This
} sort of blind, stubborn nonsense is one of the things driving me away
from
} this group. Don't expect an answer to any followup you may choose to
send, I
} don't think I can stand another year of reading your biased crap.
Same to you, buddy. You want to debate the issue, go do some research. The
facts are that your viewpoint is dishonest, you are selling a crock of crap
and you argue with your heart and not your head.
The Queen of Australia is just that. The words seem to stick in your
throat, but she is not the Queen Victoria of the Constitution. Her powers
are notional and the real powers of head of state are exercised by the
Governor-General in his own right.
The real republican question is not whether or not we should remove the
Queen, as she has no real role in Australian affairs anyway, but who or
what should exercise her only power, that of appointing the
Governor-General. IOW, we need to find an alternative light source *before*
we click off the one we currently have. Trot out your energy-friendly
long-life bulb before we blow out the oil lamp, eh?
Darren
Peter Butler wrote:
> This is only more evidence of the nonsense which the monarchists are reduced
> to. None of them can come up with a single valid reason why the Queen of
> Great Britain should be our Head of State, so they are reduced to crap
> conspiracy theories.
In my opinion it is the duty of those proposing A CHANGE to explain why
such a change is necessary. There is no problem with the Australian constitution
as it now stands, so why do we need to change it? The only reason for change
anybody has been able to put to me is that republicans are racists. This theory
holds that it is mainly Irish Catholics (P.J. Keating, father of the republic, is an
example) and other persons with anti-English feelings that want a republic.
As an Australian I was completely unaware of the severity of the English-Irish
hatred, until recently when I started working with some Irish persons. I was
quite astounded that after living in Australia for 30-40 years they still carry around
hatred for the English. They tell me that the hatred is passed from generation to
generation - a very sad indictment on the human condition, actually!
I ask my question again. How is the present constitutional arrangement failing
the Australian people?
Regards, Darren
Peter Mackay
In article <34BA2A43...@milo.uws.edu.au>,
Darren <DMag...@milo.uws.edu.au> wrote:
} Peter Butler wrote:
}
} > This is only more evidence of the nonsense which the monarchists are
reduced
} > to. None of them can come up with a single valid reason why the Queen
of
} > Great Britain should be our Head of State, so they are reduced to crap
} > conspiracy theories.
}
} In my opinion it is the duty of those proposing A CHANGE to explain why
} such a change is necessary. There is no problem with the Australian
} constitution
} as it now stands, so why do we need to change it?
I beg to differ. The Senate may still reject Supply, thereby preventing a
Government from performing its constitutional obligations. The States have
no say in proposing constitutional amendments -- we are a Federation after
all.
Peter Butler
In article <B0E038D6...@betty-p01.netinfo.net>, pete...@netinfo.com.aus (Peter Mackay) wrote:
>In article <69bvbj$n8k$1...@wyrm.its.uow.edu.au>,
>nos...@i.dont.want.to.know.com (Peter Butler) wrote:
>
>} Note: uk.politics deleted from followups
>} In article <B0DAC9DC...@betty-p07.netinfo.net>,
>pete...@netinfo.com.aus
>} (Peter Mackay) wrote:
>} >In article <691ct2$3vn$1...@wyrm.its.uow.edu.au>,
>} >nos...@i.dont.want.to.know.com (Peter Butler) wrote:
>} >
>} >} And the republican movement is not about changing the whole system,
>which
>} >is
>} >} basically rpetty good, just about taking what residual power the Queen
>of
>} >
>} >} Great Britain and Northern Ireland still holds and putting it
>} >unequivocally in
>} >} the hands of Australian citizens.
>} >
>} >What power would this be, i wonder? She has the power to rubber-stamp
>the
>} >Prime Minister's choice of Governor-General but that's as far as it
>goes.
>}
>} Funny how you took the word "residual" and changed it to "vast" Peter,
>
>A troll, to catch a fish. Seems to have worked. You want to answer the
>question, Butler? What power does the Queen have?
BY CONVENTION. Some are exercised by the GG, some are ignored-hopefully not
to our detriment. Look up the COnstitution and do a search on the word Queen,
I have given you the list before and can't be bothered doing it again.
>
>And why do you see fit to muddy the waters by talking about "The Queen of
>Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? Wearing this crown, her role in
>Australian affairs is unambiguously zero.
The Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the only Queen mentioned in
the Constitution, and her heirs and successors in that Kingdom.
>
>As Queen of Australia, she appoints the Governor-General on the advice of
>our Prime Minister.
>
>} although it seems to fit in well with your general bias against sensible
>} Constitutional Change to make the position of the Queen unambiguously
>zero.
>
>What bias would this be? I am not opposed at all to removing the Queen. I
>am opposed to either having a popular election for what is, after all, a
>position with vast but rarely used powers, and I am even more opposed to
>buying a pig in a poke. If we lose the Queen, we must find another way of
>appointing the Governor-General, and it is this question which must be
>answered.
But you say the Queen has nothing to do with it apart from being a
rubberstamp. Why would removing the rubberstamp change anything if she
exercises no control over the decision. This is the fundamental inconsistency
in your position-she ahs no power and does nothing but if she is removed
somebody else must do what she does. It seems that the problem at the moment
is that the PM appoints the GG (rubberstamp monarchs playing a minor clerical
role) and that this is another issue which should-and presumably will
be-addressed at the convention. If we don't want politicians as GG, then a
2/3 majority of Parliament (or even 3/4) should help to reduce that.
>
>For my own part, I think Tim Fischer's suggestion is the best I've heard.
>Give the Queen's only real power to the Chief Justice of the High Court,
>who can then rubber-stamp the Prime Minister's nomination. The only
>difficulty is that it makes it difficult for HCCJ to become
>Governor-General, but I think we can all live with that.
Personally, I think the 2/3 (or 3/4) majority should also be used for
appointment of High Court Justices to avoid the appointment of biased
individuals. But the Chief Justice's signature as an acknowledgement of the
legality of the appointment is a good idea, so long as no foreign monarchs are
involved.
>
>} I note you make no comment on the main thrust of the debate, the
>outrageous
>} assertion that a decision by the mint (or whoever makes such decisions)
>to
>} update the Queens portrait on our coins is some kind of republican
>conspiracy.
>
>I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Queen is getting older and
>her image should change to reflect reality. This has happened before and if
>it happens again there is no reason to suppose that it is a republican
>conspiracy in 1998 any more than it was in 1966 or 1984.
>}
>}
>} >
>} >The Governor-General has the real power, as Gough Whitlam found out.
>}
>} So does the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
>Ireland
>} have any power, as specified under the Constitution?
>
>The Queen of the Constitution is Victoria, cobber. Do try to keep up. The
>Queen of today's world is the Queen of Australia, don't you agree?
And her heirs and successors, in teh United Kingdom. I can't be bothered
finding the clause for you again. Name one Queen (or King) of Australia who
has obtained that position without being Queen of the UK. You can't, there
hasn't been any, and this is just more of your dribble.
>
>} Or none? When asked to
>} "rubberstamp" things, does she exercise any free will, or is she merely
>an
>} approving amchine which does what it is told?
>
>She acts as advised. We proved this in 1930, when King George V disagreed
>with the advice of James Scullin, but had no option other than to appoint
>Sir Isaac Isaacs.
So if she only ever does what the PM says, then she is uneccessary to the
process. Not to mention inappropriate to be a part of it.
>
>} If she does not exercise any
>} discretion when approving the actions of the GG (which are done in HER
>name,
>} not ours), then removing her from the picture totally should have no
>effect.
>
>Well it would, as Sir William Deane would have to be replaced eventually.
OK, we'd have to decide on a new rubberstamp. Hopefully one who is an
Australian citizen, or are you also on the ridiculous bandwagon which claims
that she is one?
>
>} Apparently you don't agree with this, as you voted for ACM-Yes Monarchy
>} according to a post of yours sometime last year.
>
>I'm sorry? You must be making this up. I voted for no such party.
>
You did say you voted for Mackerras, who was an ACM-Yes Monbarchy candidate.
Or doesn't that count?
>Nor did I vote the ACM ticket. I voted below the line.
>
>} If she DOES exercise
>} discretion on whether to approve, then surely she does still have power.
>
>The Queen of Australia is the only person with the power to appoint the
>Governor-General. Whether she has any discretion is debatable. I'll say
>that she has the discretion to act without advice, but that if she did so,
>she would be out of a job, so far as Australia is concerned.
By what means? DO you mean that if the Queen acts as she is apparently
entitled to do, under teh Constitution, that we will have to have a war of
independance? Or that we should ignore such decisions? On what basis could we
do that? Just pretend that the GG isn't her representative to be appointed by
her, in accordance with the Constitution? Oh, silly me, you already think
that.
>
>} You
>} can't have it both ways, although you continually try to do so.
>
>You seem to think discretion equates to power. Not so.
>
>} This is the
>} main reason I am in favour of a change to a Republic-to make the
>situation
>} absolutely clear that all power in and over Australia and its citizens is
>
>} derived from the will of the people, not the hereditary powers of one
>European
>} family.
>
>By any measure, we are a republic already, and the power of the Queen is
>notional. If she acted without advice then we would take steps to prevent a
>recurrence. Don't you agree? Or would you tug the forelock?
I would have thought that changing the Constitution, removing the QUeen of teh
UK from the process completely, BEFORE sucha crisis eventuated would be far
more sensible than leaving such a Constitutional crisis as a possible event.
Why not close the loophole before somebody drives a bus through it?
>
>} I believe that hereditary power and modern democracy are mutually
>} exclusive notions, and that our Constitution should be amended to remove
>all
>} references to the Royal family of another country, and to change the oath
>to
>} make MPs swear allegiance to _us_, the people of Australia, and our laws
>and
>} customs, rather than somebody elses Queen. I am still unable to think of
>a
>} single good reason why any Australian would think otherwise, although I
>freely
>} admit that many do.
>
>Lady Flo, maybe. But you are merely confusing yourself if you pretend that
>the Queen is not ours. Be honest. She is Queen of Australia.
yeah yeah. Of course she is. Please tell me which clause of the COnstitution
defines her as such. WHoops, sorry, you can't do that. This is the sort of
bullshit which is driving me away from this newsgroup. It doesn't seem to
matter to you what the Constitution says, so why do you care if we change it?
>
>} I think the Constitution should be the basis on which the
>} legal and political system of the country operates, not a historical
>record
>} of how it was 100 years ago.
>
>Perhaps you might care to persuade the Yanks to give up their Constitution,
>more than twice as old as ours?
I didn't say we should give it up, I said that it should eb the foundation on
which our laws are based. Currently, a number of clauses aer apparently
ignored-I would prefer written law to convention.
>
>} The current document apparently vests a large
>} amount of power in a foreign monarch-hopefully this colonial anachronism
>will
>} soon be gone.
>
>The colonial anachronism vanished a long time ago. News of the Statute of
>Westminster has yet to reach republicans, it seems, who apparently still
>believe that it is only we recalcitrant Australians still propping up the
>British Empire.
>
>Let's face it, Butler, the sun set on the British Empire a long time ago.
>About time you faced up to the current reality, which is that Australia is
>a sovereign and independent nation in every way.
"Every way" except that we have to ask the Queen of Great Britain to appoint
our GG, of course, and that our MPs swear allegiance to somebody elses Queen.
>
>} Sadly, a few other colonial anachronisms and historical
>} anomalies seem determined to oppose such a change by any argument,
>however
>} vacuous.
>
>Such as your own, you mean? Start being honest with your readers and I
>might start giving you a bit of respect.
Hah! Good one coming from you.
>
>Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Australia? YES/NO
Yes, but ONLY because she is Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
>}
>} But I don't know why I bothered arguing with you, you seem to think that
>what
>} the Constitution says is irrelevant anyway if you truly believe that the
>only
>} power vested in the Queen is to "rubberstamp" the GGs appointment.
>
>Well I'm sorry, but what the Constitution says is important. However, to
>read it in isolation is ludicruous, and if you want to ignore the
>convention that says that the Queen acts under advice, you need to pull
>your head out of your bum and face reality.
I want to get rid of the Queens involvement altogether.
>
>} I thought
>} it took a referendum to amend the Constitution, your opinion, based on
>past
>} arguments seems to be that it has been amended by the Royal Powers Act
>
>
>????? How on earth do you work this out? How does the RPA amend the
>Constitution? The Queen is unable to exercise the *Constitutional* powers
>of the Governor-General no matter how you slice and dice it.
What about the ones specifically in her name?
>
>The RPA merely allows her to exercise the *statutory* powers of the
>Governor-General, and she does so as the Governor-General's representative,
>as he can and has continued to exercise his statutory powers even if the
>Queen is present in Australia.
>
>} and,
>} more alarming, a _decision_ by the Queen not to become involved in our
>} affairs. I wonder why you would continue to oppose entrenching such
>} "amendments" in the actual document?
>
>Do I?
Apparently.
>
>} But frankly, I don't care any more. This
>} sort of blind, stubborn nonsense is one of the things driving me away
>from
>} this group. Don't expect an answer to any followup you may choose to
>send, I
>} don't think I can stand another year of reading your biased crap.
>
>Same to you, buddy. You want to debate the issue, go do some research. The
>facts are that your viewpoint is dishonest, you are selling a crock of crap
>and you argue with your heart and not your head.
>
>The Queen of Australia is just that. The words seem to stick in your
>throat, but she is not the Queen Victoria of the Constitution. Her powers
>are notional and the real powers of head of state are exercised by the
>Governor-General in his own right.
"3. The provisions of this Act referring to the QUeen shall extend to Her
MAjesty's heirs and successors IN THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM"
Like you said, do some research Petey.
>
>The real republican question is not whether or not we should remove the
>Queen, as she has no real role in Australian affairs anyway, but who or
>what should exercise her only power, that of appointing the
>Governor-General. IOW, we need to find an alternative light source *before*
>we click off the one we currently have. Trot out your energy-friendly
>long-life bulb before we blow out the oil lamp, eh?
I think your lights have already gone out. Can't be bothered going around in
these circles any more. You win, you've tired me out, I can't be bothered any
more.
Peter Mackay
In article <69egfu$orq$1...@wyrm.its.uow.edu.au>,
nos...@i.dont.want.to.know.com (Peter Butler) wrote:
Two powers only. The power to appoint the Governor-General and the power to
disallow Australian legislation. The first irrelevant following the 1926
Imperial Conference, as the Australian Prime Minister rather than the
British Colonial Secretary became the person advising the King.
The second even more irrelevant. Never used, never to be used.
The Governor-General exercises his powers in his own right. Sir John Kerr
sacked Gough Whitlam under s64, a power which could *only* be exercised by
the Governor-General.
} >
} >And why do you see fit to muddy the waters by talking about "The Queen
of
} >Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? Wearing this crown, her role in
} >Australian affairs is unambiguously zero.
}
} The Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the only Queen
mentioned in
} the Constitution, and her heirs and successors in that Kingdom.
The Queen in the Constitution is Victoria. Her heir and successor is
Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia. If you want to pursue this line of
argument, you'll be trying to tell me that HM remains Empress of India,
another Victorian title?
Times change, cobber, and both India and Australia have moved on since the
glory days of empire. Sir William Deane wears a business suit rather than
the court dress, sashes and cocked hat of Lord Hopetoun. Deal with it.
Now you're talking. The fundamental question is *how* the Queen's only role
in Australian affairs is to be replaced.
} >
} >For my own part, I think Tim Fischer's suggestion is the best I've
heard.
} >Give the Queen's only real power to the Chief Justice of the High Court,
} >who can then rubber-stamp the Prime Minister's nomination. The only
} >difficulty is that it makes it difficult for HCCJ to become
} >Governor-General, but I think we can all live with that.
}
} Personally, I think the 2/3 (or 3/4) majority should also be used for
} appointment of High Court Justices to avoid the appointment of biased
} individuals. But the Chief Justice's signature as an acknowledgement of
the
} legality of the appointment is a good idea, so long as no foreign
monarchs are
} involved.
Good. We are agreed.
See above. Victoria was not Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II is. You want
to pretend she's a foreign monarch, that's more misleading on your part. Be
honest.
Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Australia? YES/NO
Yes, I know she's also Queen of Fiji, the Solomon Islands, and the vexed
Bermoothes. Irrelevant.
}
} >
} >} Or none? When asked to
} >} "rubberstamp" things, does she exercise any free will, or is she
merely
} >an
} >} approving amchine which does what it is told?
} >
} >She acts as advised. We proved this in 1930, when King George V
disagreed
} >with the advice of James Scullin, but had no option other than to
appoint
} >Sir Isaac Isaacs.
}
} So if she only ever does what the PM says, then she is uneccessary to the
} process. Not to mention inappropriate to be a part of it.
As the Constitution stands, she is essential to the process. Only the Queen
may appoint the Governor-General. If you remove that power, then *somebody*
or *something* has to appoint the Governor-General.
} >
} >} If she does not exercise any
} >} discretion when approving the actions of the GG (which are done in HER
} >name,
} >} not ours), then removing her from the picture totally should have no
} >effect.
} >
} >Well it would, as Sir William Deane would have to be replaced
eventually.
}
} OK, we'd have to decide on a new rubberstamp.
Like drawing teeth, this is (a simple process with pen and paper, I'm
told). We have to decide on a new rubberstamp. Good. We're getting
somewhere. Don't you think we should work out who or what should do the job
before we make a change? After all, the people will have to vote on it --
might as well tell them what they are voting for, otherwise they'll get all
suspicious and tell you to bugger off and come back when you've got your
story straight.
} Hopefully one who is an
} Australian citizen, or are you also on the ridiculous bandwagon which
claims
} that she is one?
} >
} >} Apparently you don't agree with this, as you voted for ACM-Yes
Monarchy
} >} according to a post of yours sometime last year.
} >
} >I'm sorry? You must be making this up. I voted for no such party.
} >
}
} You did say you voted for Mackerras, who was an ACM-Yes Monbarchy
candidate.
I'm sorry? He most certainly was not. I've still got the forms here.
} Or doesn't that count?
This would be more of your obfucsation, would it? Try being honest for a
change, otherwise you expose your bias and reduce your credibility.
}
} >Nor did I vote the ACM ticket. I voted below the line.
} >
} >} If she DOES exercise
} >} discretion on whether to approve, then surely she does still have
power.
} >
} >The Queen of Australia is the only person with the power to appoint the
} >Governor-General. Whether she has any discretion is debatable. I'll say
} >that she has the discretion to act without advice, but that if she did
so,
} >she would be out of a job, so far as Australia is concerned.
}
} By what means? DO you mean that if the Queen acts as she is apparently
} entitled to do, under teh Constitution, that we will have to have a war
of
} independance? Or that we should ignore such decisions? On what basis
could we
} do that? Just pretend that the GG isn't her representative to be
appointed by
} her, in accordance with the Constitution? Oh, silly me, you already think
} that.
Australia being a democracy and a sovereign nation, what *we* say is
important, not what comes out of Buckingham Palace. The United States was
created as a result of an illegal act, but nobody doubts its legitimacy
nowadays. If we saw a need to ignore the Queen because there was no
alternative, we would do so. What would *you* do? Tug the forelock?
} >
} >} You
} >} can't have it both ways, although you continually try to do so.
} >
} >You seem to think discretion equates to power. Not so.
Good to see you've abandoned this point.
} >
} >} This is the
} >} main reason I am in favour of a change to a Republic-to make the
} >situation
} >} absolutely clear that all power in and over Australia and its citizens
is
} >
} >} derived from the will of the people, not the hereditary powers of one
} >European
} >} family.
} >
} >By any measure, we are a republic already, and the power of the Queen is
} >notional. If she acted without advice then we would take steps to
prevent a
} >recurrence. Don't you agree? Or would you tug the forelock?
}
} I would have thought that changing the Constitution, removing the QUeen
of teh
} UK from the process completely, BEFORE sucha crisis eventuated would be
far
} more sensible than leaving such a Constitutional crisis as a possible
event.
} Why not close the loophole before somebody drives a bus through it?
We could all cower inside our homes lest we get run over, but you'll notice
that most people regard the risk as small and go about their everyday
business. The risk of the Queen abusing her notional power is miniscule,
and the consequences even more miniscule. We'd ignore her. Or would you tug
the forelock and knuckle under?
But fine, I'm never going to close the door on constitutional amendment. We
can make a change any time we want, as the Constitution clearly states. In
fact, I'm all for making the chance of such changes more frequent. Open up
a role for the States -- we are a Federation after all, and it seems unfair
that only the Commonwealth Government may initiate change.
Yeah, yeah, and the Queen of the Constitution is Victoria. You can't ignore
the camventions, interpretations and subsequent history of our
constitution. Ninety-odd years of High Court decisions have changed the way
it works. You might as well say that because the Constitution doesn't
mention the office of Prime Minister, we shouldn't have one. But there he
is, a figure of some importance in the land, even if the Constitution
implies that the Governor-General has all the power and merely listens to
advice.
}
} >
} >} I think the Constitution should be the basis on which the
} >} legal and political system of the country operates, not a historical
} >record
} >} of how it was 100 years ago.
} >
} >Perhaps you might care to persuade the Yanks to give up their
Constitution,
} >more than twice as old as ours?
}
} I didn't say we should give it up, I said that it should eb the
foundation on
} which our laws are based. Currently, a number of clauses aer apparently
} ignored-I would prefer written law to convention.
Perhaps we should have a Constitution the size of the Tax Act? Full of
loopholes, exceptions, bandaids and incomprehensible prose but written law,
no doubt about it.
The Constitution os a prescription for government, not a description of it.
} >
} >} The current document apparently vests a large
} >} amount of power in a foreign monarch-hopefully this colonial
anachronism
} >will
} >} soon be gone.
} >
} >The colonial anachronism vanished a long time ago. News of the Statute
of
} >Westminster has yet to reach republicans, it seems, who apparently still
} >believe that it is only we recalcitrant Australians still propping up
the
} >British Empire.
} >
} >Let's face it, Butler, the sun set on the British Empire a long time
ago.
} >About time you faced up to the current reality, which is that Australia
is
} >a sovereign and independent nation in every way.
}
} "Every way" except that we have to ask the Queen of Great Britain to
appoint
} our GG, of course, and that our MPs swear allegiance to somebody elses
Queen.
A bit of honesty, please.
}
} >
} >} Sadly, a few other colonial anachronisms and historical
} >} anomalies seem determined to oppose such a change by any argument,
} >however
} >} vacuous.
} >
} >Such as your own, you mean? Start being honest with your readers and I
} >might start giving you a bit of respect.
}
} Hah! Good one coming from you.
Perhaps you could point out any dishonesty on my part? You'll have to try
pretty bloody hard.
}
} >
} >Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Australia? YES/NO
}
} Yes, but ONLY because she is Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
But she is Queen of Australia. Thank you. She is also Queen of the Solomon
Islands, but this is irrelevant to Australia, let's be honest about it.
}
} >}
} >} But I don't know why I bothered arguing with you, you seem to think
that
} >what
} >} the Constitution says is irrelevant anyway if you truly believe that
the
} >only
} >} power vested in the Queen is to "rubberstamp" the GGs appointment.
} >
} >Well I'm sorry, but what the Constitution says is important. However, to
} >read it in isolation is ludicruous, and if you want to ignore the
} >convention that says that the Queen acts under advice, you need to pull
} >your head out of your bum and face reality.
}
} I want to get rid of the Queens involvement altogether.
Fine. That makes two of us. Come back again when you've worked out how to
go about replacing her. So far it seems no two republicans have the same
notion of how to do it.
}
} >
} >} I thought
} >} it took a referendum to amend the Constitution, your opinion, based on
} >past
} >} arguments seems to be that it has been amended by the Royal Powers Act
} >
} >
} >????? How on earth do you work this out? How does the RPA amend the
} >Constitution? The Queen is unable to exercise the *Constitutional*
powers
} >of the Governor-General no matter how you slice and dice it.
}
}
} What about the ones specifically in her name?
Appointing the Governor-General and disallowing Australian legislation?
These are *not* Constitutional powers given to the Governor-General. He
cannot appoint himself or his successor, nor may he disallow legislation
previously assented to by himself or a predecessor. Big deal.
} >
} >The RPA merely allows her to exercise the *statutory* powers of the
} >Governor-General, and she does so as the Governor-General's
representative,
} >as he can and has continued to exercise his statutory powers even if the
} >Queen is present in Australia.
} >
} >} and,
} >} more alarming, a _decision_ by the Queen not to become involved in our
} >} affairs. I wonder why you would continue to oppose entrenching such
} >} "amendments" in the actual document?
} >
} >Do I?
}
} Apparently.
Well, you apparent wrong.
} >
} >} But frankly, I don't care any more. This
} >} sort of blind, stubborn nonsense is one of the things driving me away
} >from
} >} this group. Don't expect an answer to any followup you may choose to
} >send, I
} >} don't think I can stand another year of reading your biased crap.
} >
} >Same to you, buddy. You want to debate the issue, go do some research.
The
} >facts are that your viewpoint is dishonest, you are selling a crock of
crap
} >and you argue with your heart and not your head.
} >
} >The Queen of Australia is just that. The words seem to stick in your
} >throat, but she is not the Queen Victoria of the Constitution. Her
powers
} >are notional and the real powers of head of state are exercised by the
} >Governor-General in his own right.
}
} "3. The provisions of this Act referring to the QUeen shall extend to Her
} MAjesty's heirs and successors IN THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM"
}
} Like you said, do some research Petey.
And we've agreed that she is the Queen of Australia. She gets the guernsey
because she's the Queen of the UK, certainly, but she is Queen of
Australia, words which stick in your throat. Be honest.
The Constitution also provides for an Interstate Commission but does not
mention the Prime Minister. Yet the one does not exist and the other does.
Go figure.
You want to argue for a literal interpretation of the Constitution, you are
going to end up with some weird results.
}
}
} >
} >The real republican question is not whether or not we should remove the
} >Queen, as she has no real role in Australian affairs anyway, but who or
} >what should exercise her only power, that of appointing the
} >Governor-General. IOW, we need to find an alternative light source
*before*
} >we click off the one we currently have. Trot out your energy-friendly
} >long-life bulb before we blow out the oil lamp, eh?
}
} I think your lights have already gone out. Can't be bothered going around
in
} these circles any more. You win, you've tired me out, I can't be
bothered any
} more.
Got some concessions out of you, you mean. Thank you.
David Moss
Peter Mackay wrote:
>
> In article <34BA2A43...@milo.uws.edu.au>,
> Darren <DMag...@milo.uws.edu.au> wrote:
> } There is no problem with the Australian constitution
> } as it now stands, so why do we need to change it?
> I beg to differ. The Senate may still reject Supply, thereby preventing a
> Government from performing its constitutional obligations. The States have
> no say in proposing constitutional amendments -- we are a Federation after
> all.
Supply is just a bill from the lower house, just like any other.
As such it should be reviewed by the Senate, just like any other.
The current system has already shown it is capable of handling this
situation, unlike some Republics which solve similar problems with military
force.
Rod Pinna
>Supply is just a bill from the lower house, just like any other.
>As such it should be reviewed by the Senate, just like any other.
>The current system has already shown it is capable of handling this
>situation, unlike some Republics which solve similar problems with military
>force.
>
So David, lets have a quick look at one of the other countries we let
our Monarch be Head of State of. (And aren't they fortunate that we
do...)
The upper house of the British parliment does not have the power to
permanently block bills. So, why is it crucial that this power exists
here?
Bryan Palmer
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 12:22:33 +1100, David Moss <d-m...@adfa.oz.au>
writes:
>Peter Mackay wrote:
>>
>> In article <34BA2A43...@milo.uws.edu.au>,
>> Darren <DMag...@milo.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>
>
>> } There is no problem with the Australian constitution
>> } as it now stands, so why do we need to change it?
>
>> I beg to differ. The Senate may still reject Supply, thereby preventing a
>> Government from performing its constitutional obligations. The States have
>> no say in proposing constitutional amendments -- we are a Federation after
>> all.
>
>Supply is just a bill from the lower house, just like any other.
>As such it should be reviewed by the Senate, just like any other.
>The current system has already shown it is capable of handling this
>situation, unlike some Republics which solve similar problems with military
>force.
I think you are confusing the issue. The powers of the Senate and the
issue of the republic are separate. Further, just as there are a
number of tin-pot republics which solve this problem with the
military, there are also a number of tin-pot monarchies which do as
well.
Chris Maltby
:> Darren Magenni began:
:> } There is no problem with the Australian constitution
:> } as it now stands, so why do we need to change it?
:So Peter Mackay offered:
:> I beg to differ. The Senate may still reject Supply, thereby preventing a
:> Government from performing its constitutional obligations. The States have
:> no say in proposing constitutional amendments -- we are a Federation after
:> all.
Now David Moss writes:
:Supply is just a bill from the lower house, just like any other.
:As such it should be reviewed by the Senate, just like any other.
:The current system has already shown it is capable of handling this
:situation, unlike some Republics which solve similar problems with military
:force.
Not quite. The Senate's power over Money bills and Taxation bills
is already constrained to remove its power to amend them. But they
still have the ability to filibuster and thus hold the government
to ransom in a way that was obviously not intended by the writers
of the Constitution.
Clearly we need to maximise Parliament's ability to debate and
adjust the Government's budget, but an appropriation bill, which
is in line with previously approved budget estimates should not
be subject to being used as a suicide bomb by the Senate. And
we should (as a general rule) try to minimise the political role
of the Governor General or President, don't you think?
--
Chris Maltby - Softway Pty Limited Internet: ch...@sw.oz.au
PHONE: +61-2-9698-2322 "In most companies the Managing Director has
FAX: +61-2-9699-9174 his office in the future." _- Mark V. Shaney
Peter Mackay
In article <chris.8...@suite.sw.oz.au>,
ch...@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby) wrote:
} :> Darren Magenni began:
} :> } There is no problem with the Australian constitution
} :> } as it now stands, so why do we need to change it?
}
} :So Peter Mackay offered:
} :> I beg to differ. The Senate may still reject Supply, thereby
preventing a
} :> Government from performing its constitutional obligations. The States
have
} :> no say in proposing constitutional amendments -- we are a Federation
after
} :> all.
}
} Now David Moss writes:
} :Supply is just a bill from the lower house, just like any other.
} :As such it should be reviewed by the Senate, just like any other.
} :The current system has already shown it is capable of handling this
} :situation, unlike some Republics which solve similar problems with
military
} :force.
}
} Not quite. The Senate's power over Money bills and Taxation bills
} is already constrained to remove its power to amend them. But they
} still have the ability to filibuster and thus hold the government
} to ransom in a way that was obviously not intended by the writers
} of the Constitution.
Supply may be delayed without actually being rejected, or it may be
rejected outright (perhaps after some delay). Clearly our founding fathers
imagined that s57 was the appropriate mechanism to resolve this deadlock
and that a double dissolution election followed by a joint sitting would be
enough. In theory, yes, but in practice the Government runs out of money
(well the power to spend money, even if the purse is full they can't spend
it under s83) long before the election and joint sitting can be held.
Much as I might have applauded Whitlam's demise, the fact is that I don't
like the Senate's ability to run the elected Government off the rails and
force a crisis.
}
} Clearly we need to maximise Parliament's ability to debate and
} adjust the Government's budget, but an appropriation bill, which
} is in line with previously approved budget estimates should not
} be subject to being used as a suicide bomb by the Senate. And
} we should (as a general rule) try to minimise the political role
} of the Governor General or President, don't you think?
Well, no. We need someone impartial to make decisions in times of crisis.
In 1975 neither Whitlam nor Fraser looked like budging, but the crisis was
escalating. For better or worse the Governor-General made a decision which
resolved the situation (albeit at the cost of a lot of bitterness).
Perhaps the Governor-General should have the power to grant funds pending a
resolution?
Bryan Palmer
On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:55:28 +1000, pete...@netinfo.com.aus (Peter
Mackay) writes:
<snip>
>We need someone impartial to make decisions in times of crisis.
>In 1975 neither Whitlam nor Fraser looked like budging, but the crisis was
>escalating. For better or worse the Governor-General made a decision which
>resolved the situation (albeit at the cost of a lot of bitterness).
>
>Perhaps the Governor-General should have the power to grant funds pending a
>resolution?
I agree - this can be achieved with legislation, it does not require
an amendment to the constitution.
Peter Mackay
In article <34c02de...@newshost.pcug.org.au>,
bpa...@pcug.org.au (Bryan Palmer) wrote:
} On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:55:28 +1000, pete...@netinfo.com.aus (Peter
} Mackay) writes:
}
} <snip>
}
} >We need someone impartial to make decisions in times of crisis.
} >In 1975 neither Whitlam nor Fraser looked like budging, but the crisis
was
} >escalating. For better or worse the Governor-General made a decision
which
} >resolved the situation (albeit at the cost of a lot of bitterness).
} >
} >Perhaps the Governor-General should have the power to grant funds
pending a
} >resolution?
}
} I agree - this can be achieved with legislation, it does not require
} an amendment to the constitution.
<thinks> Yeah, that'll work. We have legislation, Social Security Act for
example, which draws money out on a continuing basis without need for
Supply. Have a Vice-Regal Powers Act giving him the power to withdraw funds
for a limited time at his own discretion. That'd bugger the Senate!
Or should it be under advice?
Bryan Palmer
On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 11:09:50 +1000, pete...@netinfo.com.aus (Peter
Mackay) writes:
>In article <34c02de...@newshost.pcug.org.au>,
>bpa...@pcug.org.au (Bryan Palmer) wrote:
>
>} On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:55:28 +1000, pete...@netinfo.com.aus (Peter
>} Mackay) writes:
>}
>} <snip>
>}
>} >We need someone impartial to make decisions in times of crisis.
>} >In 1975 neither Whitlam nor Fraser looked like budging, but the crisis
>was
>} >escalating. For better or worse the Governor-General made a decision
>which
>} >resolved the situation (albeit at the cost of a lot of bitterness).
>} >
>} >Perhaps the Governor-General should have the power to grant funds
>pending a
>} >resolution?
>}
>} I agree - this can be achieved with legislation, it does not require
>} an amendment to the constitution.
>
><thinks> Yeah, that'll work. We have legislation, Social Security Act for
>example, which draws money out on a continuing basis without need for
>Supply. Have a Vice-Regal Powers Act giving him the power to withdraw funds
>for a limited time at his own discretion. That'd bugger the Senate!
All that's required is a special appropriation which allows for the
running of the usual government for a limited period (say three
months). Then provide the circumstances in which it could be used by
the GG (with or without advice).
As you note, most of the big ticket items (Medicare, Social Security,
etc.) are currently special appropriations.
Terence Jacobson
pete...@netinfo.com.aus (Peter Mackay) wrote:
>In article <691ct2$3vn$1...@wyrm.its.uow.edu.au>,
>nos...@i.dont.want.to.know.com (Peter Butler) wrote:
>} And the republican movement is not about changing the whole system, which
>is
>} basically rpetty good, just about taking what residual power the Queen of
>} Great Britain and Northern Ireland still holds and putting it
>unequivocally in
>} the hands of Australian citizens.
>What power would this be, i wonder? She has the power to rubber-stamp the
>Prime Minister's choice of Governor-General but that's as far as it goes.
>The Governor-General has the real power, as Gough Whitlam found out.
> ~ m
> u U Cheers!
> \|
> |> -Peter Mackay
> / \ pete...@netinfo.com.au
> _\ /_
>http://www.netinfo.com.au/~petermac
If you read Australia's consititution you will find 16 sections which
give power to the British monarch. No person in their right mind can
say that we are a sovereign nation whilst we have a constitution like
this. The sooner we change this the better.
Terence J.
Peter Mackay
In article <34c03334...@newshost.pcug.org.au>,
bpa...@pcug.org.au (Bryan Palmer) wrote:
Wonder if we can get this on the agenda at the People's Convention?
Peter Mackay
In article <34c596e3...@news.zeta.org.au>,
lo...@my.sig (Geoff) wrote:
} On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 09:53:55 GMT, bpa...@pcug.org.au (Bryan Palmer)
} wrote:
}
} >On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:55:28 +1000, pete...@netinfo.com.aus (Peter
} >Mackay) writes:
} >
} ><snip>
} >
} >>We need someone impartial to make decisions in times of crisis.
} >>In 1975 neither Whitlam nor Fraser looked like budging, but the crisis
was
} >>escalating. For better or worse the Governor-General made a decision
which
} >>resolved the situation (albeit at the cost of a lot of bitterness).
} >>
} >>Perhaps the Governor-General should have the power to grant funds
pending a
} >>resolution?
} >
} >I agree - this can be achieved with legislation, it does not require
} >an amendment to the constitution.
}
} No taxation without representation.
Whitlam had the money in 1975. He just didn't have the authority to spend
it. The proposal now is to find a way around this rather obvious flaw in
the Constitution. Giving the Governor-General the power to approve
appropriation for a limited time would prevent the Senate being able to
stop the government carrying out its duties.
Peter Mackay
In article <69ro8v$65u$2...@news.iinet.net.au>,
jaco...@gateway.net.au (Terence Jacobson) wrote:
} pete...@netinfo.com.aus (Peter Mackay) wrote:
}
} >In article <691ct2$3vn$1...@wyrm.its.uow.edu.au>,
} >nos...@i.dont.want.to.know.com (Peter Butler) wrote:
}
} >} And the republican movement is not about changing the whole system,
which
} >is
} >} basically rpetty good, just about taking what residual power the Queen
of
}
} >} Great Britain and Northern Ireland still holds and putting it
} >unequivocally in
} >} the hands of Australian citizens.
}
} >What power would this be, i wonder? She has the power to rubber-stamp
the
} >Prime Minister's choice of Governor-General but that's as far as it
goes.
}
} >The Governor-General has the real power, as Gough Whitlam found out.
}
} > ~ m
} > u U Cheers!
} > \|
} > |> -Peter Mackay
} > / \ pete...@netinfo.com.au
} > _\ /_
}
} >http://www.netinfo.com.au/~petermac
}
} If you read Australia's consititution you will find 16 sections which
} give power to the British monarch. No person in their right mind can
} say that we are a sovereign nation whilst we have a constitution like
} this. The sooner we change this the better.
What sections would these be, then? Trot them out and we'll discuss your
ignorance in some detail.
The Queen has *two* powers. She appoints the Governor-General on the advice
of the Australian Prime Minister. As we discovered in 1930, she does this
regardless of whether she wants to or not.
Secondly, she has the power to disallow Australian legislation. This has
never been used and will never be used.
She also has the power to appoint Administrators, but this is the sole
example of a power under Section 2 that has been delegated to the
Governor-General in the Letters Patent pertaining to that office, and it is
most unlikely that this power would ever be taken back.
Bryan Palmer
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 19:17:19 +1000, pete...@netinfo.com.aus (Peter
Mackay) writes:
This is not a new idea, I think was under active consideration by
Fraser, but never got translated into legislation.
Peter Mackay
In article <34c4f595...@newshost.pcug.org.au>,
bpa...@pcug.org.au (Bryan Palmer) wrote:
Fraser, I am sure, found the way he assumed power to be a bugbear around
his neck, and presumably wasn't too keen on reminding people.
But why didn't Hawke, Keating or Howard raise the topic? The fact remains
that we *have* sailed bloody close to constitutional disaster in 1975 and
we haven't patched the hole yet. I think it would be fair to say that most
people would be keen to find some way around the problem and prevent a
repitition.
David Moss
Rod Pinna wrote:
> The upper house of the British parliment does not have the power to
> permanently block bills. So, why is it crucial that this power exists
> here?
Er, because our system of government is better than theirs ?
Simple really. If its not broke, don't try to fix it !
Rod Pinna
In article <34C2D24D...@adfa.oz.au>, David Moss <d-m...@adfa.oz.au> wrote:
>Rod Pinna wrote:
>
>> The upper house of the British parliment does not have the power to
>> permanently block bills. So, why is it crucial that this power exists
>> here?
>
>Er, because our system of government is better than theirs ?
>Simple really. If its not broke, don't try to fix it !
>
Tell us why then the people who wrote the constitution didn't adopt
the same system as the UK. After all, if they had followed you rule of
not fixing things that "ain't broke" (though one could argue that
point) we should have the same system as the UK now does.
David Moss
Bryan Palmer wrote:
>
> I think you are confusing the issue. The powers of the Senate and the
> issue of the republic are separate.
There are a large number of confused "true believers" out there who think
becoming a republic will also prevent 1975 style constitutional crisis.
Some see it as the final boot in the ribs of the Governer General, and the
final indignity they can inflict on Kerr and HRH.
>Further, just as there are a
> number of tin-pot republics which solve this problem with the
> military, there are also a number of tin-pot monarchies which do as
> well.
I would hardly call the Russians a TPR.
Their parliament had a little tiff with the President and sacked him.
He responded by odering tanks to blast the elected representatives of the
people out
of the Parliament building with artillery fire, then sent in the infantry
to mop up.
Somehow I can't see HRH blasting John and Kym out of APH using the ADF.
Great, isn't it ?
DAvid Moss,
personal opinion only
Brian
On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, David Moss wrote:
> Rod Pinna wrote:
>
> > The upper house of the British parliment does not have the power to
> > permanently block bills. So, why is it crucial that this power exists
> > here?
>
> Er, because our system of government is better than theirs ?
Is it? By what definition do you make that statement, David?
> Simple really. If its not broke, don't try to fix it !
Well, I think only blind freddy would say the ability to block
supply in the upper-house is an example of our constitution working well.
I can't think of one example from around the world where the
upper house of parliament, which is intended as a house of review (or as
in our case a states' rights house) has the ability to block supply.
Delay it, but block it?
The UK Parliament removed that right from the House of Lords n
the first decade of this century and the US Senate has never had that
ability. Both were supposedly the examples on which our constitution was
modelled (with a dash of Swiss referenda for fun as well).
You don't think its time we perhaps learnt not necessarily from
their lessons but our own that this is a dangerous power to leave in the
house where the government does not draw its mandate to govern?
-Brian Ross-------http://www.cis.unisa.edu.au/staff/ross.b./bookshelf.html
`the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility,
since the great masses of the people ... more easily fall victim to a
big lie than to a little one' - Adolph (Peter Mackay) Hitler_________
Rod Pinna
>
>Somehow I can't see HRH blasting John and Kym out of APH using the ADF.
>Great, isn't it ?
>
Why not? Somebody in another thread was telling us how it was good
that there was an independent Queen who able to send her troops to the
Falklands before the UK parliment did.
So, why shouldn't the Queen, or mad King Morris XIX do so?
Stop confusing the person (QEII) with the institution.
Chris Maltby
:} :> Darren Magenni began:
:} :> } There is no problem with the Australian constitution
:} :> } as it now stands, so why do we need to change it?
:} :So Peter Mackay offered:
:} :> I beg to differ. The Senate may still reject Supply, thereby
:} :> preventing a Government from performing its constitutional
:} :> obligations. The States have no say in proposing constitutional
:} :> amendments -- we are a Federation after all.
:} Then David Moss writes:
:} :Supply is just a bill from the lower house, just like any other.
:} :As such it should be reviewed by the Senate, just like any other.
:} :The current system has already shown it is capable of handling this
:} :situation, unlike some Republics which solve similar problems with
:} :military force.
:So I wrote:
:} Not quite. The Senate's power over Money bills and Taxation bills
:} is already constrained to remove its power to amend them. But they
:} still have the ability to filibuster and thus hold the government
:} to ransom in a way that was obviously not intended by the writers
:} of the Constitution.
So now Peter Mackay writes:
:Supply may be delayed without actually being rejected, or it may be
:rejected outright (perhaps after some delay).
Your attendance at ON meetings seems to be rotting your intellect, Pete.
Isn't that what I just said?
:Clearly our founding fathers imagined that s57 was the appropriate mechanism
:to resolve this deadlock and that a double dissolution election followed by
:a joint sitting would be enough. In theory, yes, but in practice the
:Government runs out of money (well the power to spend money, even if the
:purse is full they can't spend it under s83) long before the election and
:joint sitting can be held.
Who knows what they imagined. It clearly isn't sufficient to handle an
actual case predictably.
:Much as I might have applauded Whitlam's demise, the fact is that I don't
:like the Senate's ability to run the elected Government off the rails and
:force a crisis.
Quite. Especially as John Kerr's approach only worked by accident...
:} Clearly we need to maximise Parliament's ability to debate and
:} adjust the Government's budget, but an appropriation bill, which
:} is in line with previously approved budget estimates should not
:} be subject to being used as a suicide bomb by the Senate. And
:} we should (as a general rule) try to minimise the political role
:} of the Governor General or President, don't you think?
:Well, no. We need someone impartial to make decisions in times of crisis.
Isn't that what I just said. We want to minimise the political role of
the GG, not increase it. While it may be impossible to eliminate the
need for GGs to make political judgements, we should surely aim for
a constitution which reduces that need. Having an impartial GG is
obviously a requirement, but not something that can be ensured.
:In 1975 neither Whitlam nor Fraser looked like budging, but the crisis was
:escalating. For better or worse the Governor-General made a decision which
:resolved the situation (albeit at the cost of a lot of bitterness).
He made two decisions. The first was to decide to act. The second was to
decide that the action would be to dismiss the PM who still enjoyed the
confidence of the House. Actually, he made a third decision. He decided
to consult off-the-record with the Chief Justice of the very Court which
would have heard any case arising from his actions.
:Perhaps the Governor-General should have the power to grant funds pending a
:resolution?
Perhaps. I'm happy enough to just remove the power from the Senate. Let's
hold DD elections on matters of policy, not procedure. Much as you may
despise the Whitlam government, no-one has seriously suggested that our
nation would have been more damaged by its continuation in office for
a further year than it was by the 1975 crisis. And what exactly can a
government which has no control of the Senate do unless the body of
existing legislation is too generous with the power of ministers?
David Moss
Peter Mackay wrote:
>
> In article <34c596e3...@news.zeta.org.au>,
> lo...@my.sig (Geoff) wrote:
> }
> } No taxation without representation.
>
> Whitlam had the money in 1975. He just didn't have the authority to spend
> it. The proposal now is to find a way around this rather obvious flaw in
> the Constitution. Giving the Governor-General the power to approve
> appropriation for a limited time would prevent the Senate being able to
> stop the government carrying out its duties.
Er, government is a combination of both the Reps and the Senate.
If the Senate stops some idiot in the Reps from lumbering the country with
a ridiculous spending program, good on it. Shows its doing its job
properly.
The consequences of pressing this "master reset button" are that the whole
lot of them face the people with their story shortly afterwards.
David Moss
Peter Mackay wrote:
> But why didn't Hawke, Keating or Howard raise the topic? The fact remains
> that we *have* sailed bloody close to constitutional disaster in 1975 and
> we haven't patched the hole yet.
You've got it wrong Peter.
What the Senate did was like when the railway people put those explosive
thingies on
the rails to warn train drivers of danger. Whitlam's train ran over them at
full steam.
The resulting loud bang upset lots of people in the carriages but The GG
stopped the train
in time to avoid disaster.
>I think it would be fair to say that most
> people would be keen to find some way around the problem and prevent a
> repitition.
Our Parliamentary system is set up just like a "representational
referendum".
It takes a majority of votes (reps) in a majority of States (Senate) for
anything to be deemed acceptable by the Australian people. If our elected
representatives can't get their act together the same question is put to
the people via a DD election and a joint sitting. Why should the people get
less of a say on money bills ?
David Moss,
personal opinion only.
Rod Pinna
>Er, government is a combination of both the Reps and the Senate.
>If the Senate stops some idiot in the Reps from lumbering the country with
>a ridiculous spending program, good on it. Shows its doing its job
>properly.
>
Gee, want to remind Howard or Reith next time they complain about the
Senate not passing their legislation unammended?
Chris Maltby
:Peter Mackay wrote:
:> Whitlam had the money in 1975. He just didn't have the authority to spend
:> it. The proposal now is to find a way around this rather obvious flaw in
:> the Constitution. Giving the Governor-General the power to approve
:> appropriation for a limited time would prevent the Senate being able to
:> stop the government carrying out its duties.
So David Moss writes:
:Er, government is a combination of both the Reps and the Senate.
Not in this country, mate. The Government is determined in the House;
the Senate reviews the Government's legislative program.
:If the Senate stops some idiot in the Reps from lumbering the country with
:a ridiculous spending program, good on it. Shows its doing its job
:properly.
Let me remind you that your mythical "idiot in the Reps" is of
course the Prime Minister. Our system is set up (like the Brits)
so that the Prime Minister is the leader who has the confidence of
the House alone. We trust the people of Australia to elect the
members of that house and we make them all swear an oath of loyalty
to the Queen who once embodied the nation and its people. Isn't
that sufficient?
Now, the Senate can censure or carry no-confidence motions until
they are blue in the face. That's all just politicking. When they
block or delay supply, they are threatening with a constitutional
suicide bomb. The Kerr trick is unlikely to work again, so that
leaves just two options - a Senate backdown or chaos. Is that a
sane course for the nation?
:The consequences of pressing this "master reset button" are that the whole
:lot of them face the people with their story shortly afterwards.
Nope. There is no "master reset button" in the present system. There's
only a "panic" button. Only a lunatic would press it...
Chris Maltby
:Peter Mackay wrote:
:> But why didn't Hawke, Keating or Howard raise the topic? The fact remains
:> that we *have* sailed bloody close to constitutional disaster in 1975 and
:> we haven't patched the hole yet.
So David Moss writes:
:You've got it wrong Peter. What the Senate did was like when the railway
:people put those explosive thingies on the rails to warn train drivers of
:danger. Whitlam's train ran over them at full steam. The resulting loud
:bang upset lots of people in the carriages but The GG stopped the train
:in time to avoid disaster.
That's such an inapt analogy it's comical. What happened was that Fraser
realised that Whitlam's populartity had declined to the point where he
would lose an election called at that moment, and Fraser had enough
political capital including the support of all the media to be able to
avoid most of the backlash associated with his perversion of the
conventions. So he pushed the panic button with impunity. Even so, his
cattle in the senate were getting nervous about their role. And the
whole thing was only possible because the Queensland government had
already perverted convention by appointing an opponent of the ALP to
fill an ALP casual vacancy in the Senate, overriding the will of the
people expressed just 18 months previously.
There were no trains, no explosives, no loud bangs and no frantic
pulling of brake levers. Just a big load of political cant, some of
which seems to come back like a zombie.
:>I think it would be fair to say that most people would be keen to
:>find some way around the problem and prevent a repetition.
:Our Parliamentary system is set up just like a "representational
:referendum". It takes a majority of votes (reps) in a majority of
:States (Senate) for anything to be deemed acceptable by the Australian
:people. If our elected representatives can't get their act together
:the same question is put to the people via a DD election and a joint
:sitting. Why should the people get less of a say on money bills ?
I notice you didn't address Peter's statement about whether or not
a majority would like to find a way to prevent a repetition of the
events of 1975. Instead you gave us a little homily about the way
parliament works and a throw-away line about money bills. The
problem is that the "people" already get less of a say about them
because the Constitution forbids the Senate to amend them. It may
pass, reject or delay but not change. Any other ideas? Or are you
still defending your hero Malcolm Fraser long after everyone
(including him) have seen the light?
Peter Mackay
In article <69uko7$6c7$2...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>,
he...@there.com (Rod Pinna) wrote:
} In article <34C2D24D...@adfa.oz.au>, David Moss <d-m...@adfa.oz.au>
wrote:
} >Rod Pinna wrote:
} >
} >> The upper house of the British parliment does not have the power to
} >> permanently block bills. So, why is it crucial that this power exists
} >> here?
} >
} >Er, because our system of government is better than theirs ?
} >Simple really. If its not broke, don't try to fix it !
} >
} Yeah yeah David.
}
} Tell us why then the people who wrote the constitution didn't adopt
} the same system as the UK. After all, if they had followed you rule of
} not fixing things that "ain't broke" (though one could argue that
} point) we should have the same system as the UK now does.
For a start, the United Kindgom is not a Federation, nor is its
Constitution written down in one place.
Peter Mackay
In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.980119...@cheops.anu.edu.au>,
Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au> wrote:
} On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, David Moss wrote:
}
} > Rod Pinna wrote:
} >
} > > The upper house of the British parliment does not have the power to
} > > permanently block bills. So, why is it crucial that this power exists
} > > here?
} >
} > Er, because our system of government is better than theirs ?
}
} Is it? By what definition do you make that statement, David?
}
} > Simple really. If its not broke, don't try to fix it !
}
} Well, I think only blind freddy would say the ability to block
} supply in the upper-house is an example of our constitution working well.
}
} I can't think of one example from around the world where the
} upper house of parliament, which is intended as a house of review (or as
} in our case a states' rights house) has the ability to block supply.
} Delay it, but block it?
A quick check (and I'm relying on a literal interpretation here) reveals
the following:
The French allow their Senate to block Supply. (Art 46) However, the money
may be raised and spent by emergency decree (Art 47) until the situation is
resolved, which is basically the solution arrived at by Bryan and myself
(and has the advantage of not requiring constitutional amendment).
The Mexicans do not distinguish between finance and other bills except that
finance bills must be introduced in the Chamber of Deputies (Art 72(h)).
Apart from that, if the Chamber of Senators blocks a finance bill, that is
that, and it may not be reintroduced until the next period of sessions (Art
72(d),(e(iii))).
Much the same situation exists in the other United States over the border,
where revenue bills must originate in the Reps, but both houses must pass
bills before they become law. (Art I, s7).
I dare say, if I had more constitutions on hand, I could find more
examples.
}
} The UK Parliament removed that right from the House of Lords n
} the first decade of this century
Agreed.
} and the US Senate has never had that
} ability.
How do you work this out? I'm not disputing your view, merely seeking
information.
} Both were supposedly the examples on which our constitution was
} modelled (with a dash of Swiss referenda for fun as well).
And at the time of federation, both UK and USA allowed their upper house to
block supply.
}
} You don't think its time we perhaps learnt not necessarily from
} their lessons but our own that this is a dangerous power to leave in the
} house where the government does not draw its mandate to govern?
Concur. I'd like to see it removed or nullified to a greater or lesser
degree. 1975 was too close to disaster for my liking.
Peter Mackay
In article <34C2E791...@adfa.oz.au>,
David Moss <d-m...@adfa.oz.au> wrote:
} Peter Mackay wrote:
} >
} > In article <34c596e3...@news.zeta.org.au>,
} > lo...@my.sig (Geoff) wrote:
} > }
} > } No taxation without representation.
} >
} > Whitlam had the money in 1975. He just didn't have the authority to
spend
} > it. The proposal now is to find a way around this rather obvious flaw
in
} > the Constitution. Giving the Governor-General the power to approve
} > appropriation for a limited time would prevent the Senate being able to
} > stop the government carrying out its duties.
}
} Er, government is a combination of both the Reps and the Senate.
No, that's Parliament. I already considered this as a defence.
} If the Senate stops some idiot in the Reps from lumbering the country
with
} a ridiculous spending program, good on it. Shows its doing its job
} properly.
}
} The consequences of pressing this "master reset button" are that the
whole
} lot of them face the people with their story shortly afterwards.
Fine, but in the meantime the country runs out of legal money and the
machinery of government grinds to a halt.
s57 takes at least four months to operate from submission of Supply to
joint sitting. Perhaps the Governor-General should have the power to grant
limited supply pending either the passing of the Bills or an election to be
held ASAP?
Peter Mackay
No. You did not include the power to reject Supply outright.
Bear with me. You *did* mention our founding fathers, didn't you?
}
} :Clearly our founding fathers imagined that s57 was the appropriate
mechanism
} :to resolve this deadlock and that a double dissolution election followed
by
} :a joint sitting would be enough. In theory, yes, but in practice the
} :Government runs out of money (well the power to spend money, even if the
} :purse is full they can't spend it under s83) long before the election
and
} :joint sitting can be held.
}
} Who knows what they imagined.
We do. The proceedings of the various conventions were well documented.
However, Sir Robert Garran was there, and his "Prosper the Commonwealth" is
a most readable account. Page 117 shows that s57 was the mechanism seen as
the way to break deadlocks over money bills.
} It clearly isn't sufficient to handle an
} actual case predictably.
Another argument for not codifying too much, but leaving matters in the
hands of men of judgement.
}
} :Much as I might have applauded Whitlam's demise, the fact is that I
don't
} :like the Senate's ability to run the elected Government off the rails
and
} :force a crisis.
}
} Quite. Especially as John Kerr's approach only worked by accident...
Not quite. Though Whitlam could have saved the day for his side, Sir John
was pretty sure that he wouldn't be able to. He reinforced his view by
springing his decision as a surprise, giving Whitlam only a few seconds to
make up his mind.
}
} :} Clearly we need to maximise Parliament's ability to debate and
} :} adjust the Government's budget, but an appropriation bill, which
} :} is in line with previously approved budget estimates should not
} :} be subject to being used as a suicide bomb by the Senate. And
} :} we should (as a general rule) try to minimise the political role
} :} of the Governor General or President, don't you think?
}
} :Well, no. We need someone impartial to make decisions in times of
crisis.
}
} Isn't that what I just said. We want to minimise the political role of
} the GG, not increase it. While it may be impossible to eliminate the
} need for GGs to make political judgements, we should surely aim for
} a constitution which reduces that need. Having an impartial GG is
} obviously a requirement, but not something that can be ensured.
Perhaps we're talking at cross-purposes. Sir John Kerr can be seen as
having acted impartially, but clearly his actions had a political dimension
because he booted Whitlam out and installed Fraser. Obviously one side
would be displeased by his decision.
}
} :In 1975 neither Whitlam nor Fraser looked like budging, but the crisis
was
} :escalating. For better or worse the Governor-General made a decision
which
} :resolved the situation (albeit at the cost of a lot of bitterness).
}
} He made two decisions. The first was to decide to act.
And that was his job.
} The second was to
} decide that the action would be to dismiss the PM who still enjoyed the
} confidence of the House.
But who would not advise him to resolve the crisis, and whose proposed
solutions were clearly inappropriate. Whitlam might have guessed that the
Coalition would crack, but he could not be sure of it. His scheme to get
the banks to guarantee Commonwealth expenditure was wildly improbable.
} Actually, he made a third decision. He decided
} to consult off-the-record with the Chief Justice of the very Court which
} would have heard any case arising from his actions.
He got no opinion from the Government, he was aware of the Coalition's
opinion, so he sought a third and presumably impartial view.
}
} :Perhaps the Governor-General should have the power to grant funds
pending a
} :resolution?
}
} Perhaps. I'm happy enough to just remove the power from the Senate. Let's
} hold DD elections on matters of policy, not procedure. Much as you may
} despise the Whitlam government, no-one has seriously suggested that our
} nation would have been more damaged by its continuation in office for
} a further year than it was by the 1975 crisis. And what exactly can a
} government which has no control of the Senate do unless the body of
} existing legislation is too generous with the power of ministers?
Indeed. Whatever, I'd like to see the power removed or nullified.
I think this must be a first. We're in broad agreement but quibbling over
details. <grin>
Peter Mackay
In article <34C2E995...@adfa.oz.au>,
David Moss <d-m...@adfa.oz.au> wrote:
} Peter Mackay wrote:
}
} > But why didn't Hawke, Keating or Howard raise the topic? The fact
remains
} > that we *have* sailed bloody close to constitutional disaster in 1975
and
} > we haven't patched the hole yet.
}
} You've got it wrong Peter.
} What the Senate did was like when the railway people put those explosive
} thingies on
} the rails to warn train drivers of danger. Whitlam's train ran over them
at
} full steam.
} The resulting loud bang upset lots of people in the carriages but The GG
} stopped the train
} in time to avoid disaster.
Well yes, we didn't actually run off the rails onto the rocks, but relying
on the Governor-General to ambush the Prime Minister is not going to work a
second time.
}
} >I think it would be fair to say that most
} > people would be keen to find some way around the problem and prevent a
} > repitition.
}
} Our Parliamentary system is set up just like a "representational
} referendum".
} It takes a majority of votes (reps) in a majority of States (Senate) for
} anything to be deemed acceptable by the Australian people. If our elected
} representatives can't get their act together the same question is put to
} the people via a DD election and a joint sitting. Why should the people
get
} less of a say on money bills ?
Because the country might run out of money in the interim. Section 57 is
just too slow to work in every case. Fine if the legislation is not of
immediate importance, but the effects of running out of money whilst
awaiting a trigger, let alone an election, are too severe to contemplate
with equanimity.
Admittedly the scale of potential disaster has been reduced somewhat, with
many Acts arranging their own supply, such as the Social Security Act.
Rod Pinna
In article <B0EA3B41...@betty-p03.netinfo.net>, pete...@netinfo.com.aus (Peter Mackay) wrote:
>} Tell us why then the people who wrote the constitution didn't adopt
>} the same system as the UK. After all, if they had followed you rule of
>} not fixing things that "ain't broke" (though one could argue that
>} point) we should have the same system as the UK now does.
>
>For a start, the United Kindgom is not a Federation, nor is its
>Constitution written down in one place.
>
That doesn't change the implication of what I asked. Then why didn't
they adopt the same idea of Australia not being a Federation and
having an implied Constitution.
Bryan Palmer
On Tue, 20 Jan 1998 11:30:09 +1000, pete...@netinfo.com.aus (Peter
Mackay) writes:
>In article <69uko7$6c7$2...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>,
>he...@there.com (Rod Pinna) wrote:
>
>} In article <34C2D24D...@adfa.oz.au>, David Moss <d-m...@adfa.oz.au>
>wrote:
>} >Rod Pinna wrote:
>} >
>} >> The upper house of the British parliment does not have the power to
>} >> permanently block bills. So, why is it crucial that this power exists
>} >> here?
>} >
>} >Er, because our system of government is better than theirs ?
>} >Simple really. If its not broke, don't try to fix it !
>} >
>} Yeah yeah David.
>}
>} Tell us why then the people who wrote the constitution didn't adopt
>} the same system as the UK. After all, if they had followed you rule of
>} not fixing things that "ain't broke" (though one could argue that
>} point) we should have the same system as the UK now does.
>
>For a start, the United Kindgom is not a Federation, nor is its
>Constitution written down in one place.
More minor quibbles.
The UK is not a federation, but since 28 October 1971 it is a state in
a federation (now known as the European Union). The UK Parliament is
no longer sovereign, and laws of the Union override UK laws.
Our constitution is no longer written in one place - the Statute of
Westminster Adoption Act and the Australia Act are also part of our
constitution.
Greggers
Darren <DMag...@milo.uws.edu.au> wrote:
> The latest tactic of the Australian Republican Movement to
> encourage the Australian people to vote for a republic
> in the year 2000 is to have a severely un-flattering
> effigy of the Queen drawn for the back of all Australian
> coins!
Anybody remember the right wing ultra monarchist quasi-terroristic
anti-catholic Vanguard "Vs" on Saorstat coins?
Greggers
--
A beautiful woman is the hell of the soul, the purgatory of the purse,
and the paradise of the eyes
- Fontenelle.
Andrew Yong
> > The latest tactic of the Australian Republican Movement to
> > encourage the Australian people to vote for a republic
> > in the year 2000 is to have a severely un-flattering
> > effigy of the Queen drawn for the back of all Australian
> > coins!
Isn't defacing the coinage of the realm unlawful?
andrew
--------------------------------------
Andre...@Christ-Church.Oxford.AC.UK or @chch.ox.ac.uk
Darren
Brian wrote:
> Well, I think only blind freddy would say the ability to block
> supply in the upper-house is an example of our constitution working well.
Even if the government in question is totally incompetent, or being run bythe
mentally deranged??
> I can't think of one example from around the world where the
> upper house of parliament, which is intended as a house of review (or as
> in our case a states' rights house) has the ability to block supply.
> Delay it, but block it?
Remember the deadlock between PRESIDENT Clinton and the US Senateduring 1996???
The government's checks were bouncing for several weeks!!
Government employees were not paid, social security recipients did not receive
their money, etc. A great REPUBLICAN model working well!!
> The UK Parliament removed that right from the House of Lords n
> the first decade of this century and the US Senate has never had that
> ability. Both were supposedly the examples on which our constitution was
> modelled (with a dash of Swiss referenda for fun as well).
>
> You don't think its time we perhaps learnt not necessarily from
> their lessons but our own that this is a dangerous power to leave in the
> house where the government does not draw its mandate to govern?
How do you propose the situation of an incompetent government should
be dealt with? Is it not absolutely essential that a system be in place that
allows an incompetent government to be sacked?? I find little coincidence
in the fact that it is the incompetent economic managers of the ALP that
object most strongly to the ability of the opposition to block supply.
Regards, Darren
Chris Maltby
:}Peter Mackay said:
:} :In 1975 neither Whitlam nor Fraser looked like budging, but the crisis
:} :was escalating. For better or worse the Governor-General made a decision
:} :which resolved the situation (albeit at the cost of a lot of bitterness).
:So I wrote:
:} He made two decisions. The first was to decide to act.
Now Peter Mackay writes:
:And that was his job.
That is clearly a matter of debate.
:} The second was to decide that the action would be to dismiss the PM
:} who still enjoyed the confidence of the House.
:But who would not advise him to resolve the crisis, and whose proposed
:solutions were clearly inappropriate. Whitlam might have guessed that the
:Coalition would crack, but he could not be sure of it. His scheme to get
:the banks to guarantee Commonwealth expenditure was wildly improbable.
But Whitlam could not advise an election unless supply was assured.
What else could he do? That's why the Senate power is essentially
a suicide bomb. I can only lead to a crisis, and the outcome of
the crisis depends on the GG and PM ultimately being altruistic.
It seems unwise for the nation to depend on that.
:} Actually, he made a third decision. He decided to consult off-the-record
:} with the Chief Justice of the very Court which would have heard any case
:} arising from his actions.
:He got no opinion from the Government, he was aware of the Coalition's
:opinion, so he sought a third and presumably impartial view.
There's no way that anyone could have described Barwick by as impartial.
It wasn't as if Kerr could say he didn't have a political background
either. So why not ask a constitutional lawyer - no shortage of them...
He was looking for the advice he got, and looking for a way to spread
the blame for his decisions.
:} :Perhaps the Governor-General should have the power to grant funds
:} :pending a resolution?
:} Perhaps. I'm happy enough to just remove the power from the Senate. Let's
:} hold DD elections on matters of policy, not procedure. Much as you may
:} despise the Whitlam government, no-one has seriously suggested that our
:} nation would have been more damaged by its continuation in office for
:} a further year than it was by the 1975 crisis. And what exactly can a
:} government which has no control of the Senate do unless the body of
:} existing legislation is too generous with the power of ministers?
:Indeed. Whatever, I'd like to see the power removed or nullified.
:I think this must be a first. We're in broad agreement but quibbling over
:details. <grin>
I don't think it's the first time :-) Though I think our views on this
issue have each evolved somewhat closer over the years.
Chris Maltby
:So Peter Mackay wrote:
:>Whitlam had the money in 1975. He just didn't have the authority to spend
:>it. The proposal now is to find a way around this rather obvious flaw in
:>the Constitution. Giving the Governor-General the power to approve
:>appropriation for a limited time would prevent the Senate being able to
:>stop the government carrying out its duties.
Now Geoff Niland writes:
:8^) I understand your point, but I think mine is more universally
:relevant. No taxation without representation.
What are you talking about, Geoff. What has taxation got to do with
the supply situation under discussion. Universally relevant maybe,
but irrelevant to this debate.
:Besides, if the GG can do that, who needs a PM? Or a House of Review?
:What's the point of enabling the Senate to refuse Supply when the GG
:can reverse their decision on a whim? With the current situation, the
:only real option is to return the decision to the people. Which is as
:it should be.
So tell us how the people can make their decision when there is no
money to pay the people who count the votes? Either you give the GG
the unilateral power to authorise temporary supply, or you take away
the power of the senate to block or filibuster supply bills. Or tell
me of a third way...
:Further, if a GG were able to approve Supply, partisanship would
:become a major issue. Within the current system, accusation of
:partisanship are solely the province of the losers in the subsequent
:election and as such cannot be taken seriously by anyone.
Imagine a 1975 situation in which the ALP wins the election but fails
to get a majority in the senate. What status would accusations of
partisanship hold then? You're just floundering on this. Give it some
thought (if that's possible) and get back to us when you have something
of value to add.
JC
Andrew Yong wrote in message ...
>
>> > The latest tactic of the Australian Republican Movement to
>> > encourage the Australian people to vote for a republic
>> > in the year 2000 is to have a severely un-flattering
>> > effigy of the Queen drawn for the back of all Australian
>> > coins!
>
>Isn't defacing the coinage of the realm unlawful?
Yes, but this one was approved by the Queen.
Regards,
JC
"Sorry mate, that's what you get for being foreign" Matthew Huntbach
Greggers
JC <Bigf...@connexus.NOSPAMapana.org.au> wrote:
You love the auld dear JC
Greggers
--
War, what is it good for, absolutely ...etc.
Peter Mackay
} So tell us how the people can make their decision when there is no
} money to pay the people who count the votes? Either you give the GG
} the unilateral power to authorise temporary supply, or you take away
} the power of the senate to block or filibuster supply bills. Or tell
} me of a third way...
Expenditure to pay electoral workers doesn't depend on supply nor some sort
of election bill. In 1975, the money was available, but some expenditure
had not been appropriated.
Peter Mackay
} :}Peter Mackay said:
} :} :In 1975 neither Whitlam nor Fraser looked like budging, but the
crisis
} :} :was escalating. For better or worse the Governor-General made a
decision
} :} :which resolved the situation (albeit at the cost of a lot of
bitterness).
}
} :So I wrote:
} :} He made two decisions. The first was to decide to act.
}
} Now Peter Mackay writes:
} :And that was his job.
}
} That is clearly a matter of debate.
Fine. Whitlam was proposing a hare-brained scheme to get the banks to
guarantee Commonwealth loans. Of dubious legality, and even more dubious
practicality. He was also proposing a half-senate election eighteen months
early, with no constitutional authority. Clearly neither of these proposals
could guarantee that the mechanisms of government would continue to operate
pending a resolution.
Sir John Kerr was *forced* to act. Even if he did no more than decide to
accept Whitlam's advice and wear the consequences, that was a decision.
Clearly he was going to have to make a decision -- he couldn't bury his
head in the sand and pretend it was all a bad dream, because he was the
only person in the world with the power to resolve the crisis (with the
exception of Malcolm Fraser, and a viceregal instruction to pass Supply
exceeded his authority(.
}
} :} The second was to decide that the action would be to dismiss the PM
} :} who still enjoyed the confidence of the House.
}
} :But who would not advise him to resolve the crisis, and whose proposed
} :solutions were clearly inappropriate. Whitlam might have guessed that
the
} :Coalition would crack, but he could not be sure of it. His scheme to get
} :the banks to guarantee Commonwealth expenditure was wildly improbable.
}
} But Whitlam could not advise an election unless supply was assured.
Rubbish. He had umpteen grounds for a trigger under s57. He could have
advised a double dissolution at any time. In actual fact, this is precisely
what Malcolm Fraser did.
} What else could he do? That's why the Senate power is essentially
} a suicide bomb. I can only lead to a crisis, and the outcome of
} the crisis depends on the GG and PM ultimately being altruistic.
} It seems unwise for the nation to depend on that.
We've got to have *someone* sitting in the chairs. We elect and appoint men
of judgement to make decisions. You have a better alternative, maybe?
}
} :} Actually, he made a third decision. He decided to consult
off-the-record
} :} with the Chief Justice of the very Court which would have heard any
case
} :} arising from his actions.
}
} :He got no opinion from the Government, he was aware of the Coalition's
} :opinion, so he sought a third and presumably impartial view.
}
} There's no way that anyone could have described Barwick by as impartial.
As the Chief Justice of the High Court, his view was presumably impartial.
} It wasn't as if Kerr could say he didn't have a political background
} either. So why not ask a constitutional lawyer - no shortage of them...
} He was looking for the advice he got, and looking for a way to spread
} the blame for his decisions.
I don't think so. He wasn't too keen about highlighting the role of
Barwick, let alone looking to spread the blame. As it happened, blame was
allocated by the voters.
Peter Mackay
In article <34e599da...@news.zeta.org.au>,
lo...@my.sig (Geoff) wrote:
} (1) please - I've no interest in arguing whether the GG is or isn't
} HoS.
Curses! Enjoyable discussion defused! <puts books back on shelf, which
creaks alarmingly>
Chris Maltby
:} :}Peter Mackay said:
:} :} :In 1975 neither Whitlam nor Fraser looked like budging, but the
:} :} :crisis was escalating. For better or worse the Governor-General
:} :} :made a decision which resolved the situation (albeit at the cost
:} :} : of a lot of bitterness).
:} :And I wrote:
:} :} He made two decisions. The first was to decide to act.
:} So Peter Mackay said:
:} :And that was his job.
:So I wrote:
:} That is clearly a matter of debate.
Now Peter Mackay writes:
:Fine. Whitlam was proposing a hare-brained scheme to get the banks to
:guarantee Commonwealth loans. Of dubious legality, and even more dubious
:practicality. He was also proposing a half-senate election eighteen months
:early, with no constitutional authority. Clearly neither of these proposals
:could guarantee that the mechanisms of government would continue to operate
:pending a resolution.
The obvious alternative was to wait until the Parliament itself resolved
the problem.
:Sir John Kerr was *forced* to act. Even if he did no more than decide to
:accept Whitlam's advice and wear the consequences, that was a decision.
:Clearly he was going to have to make a decision -- he couldn't bury his
:head in the sand and pretend it was all a bad dream, because he was the
:only person in the world with the power to resolve the crisis (with the
:exception of Malcolm Fraser, and a viceregal instruction to pass Supply
:exceeded his authority(.
That's the nub of the problem. He needs a parliament to pass the supply
bills, otherwise he can dissolve it any time he feels like it.
:} :} The second was to decide that the action would be to dismiss the PM
:} :} who still enjoyed the confidence of the House.
:} :But who would not advise him to resolve the crisis, and whose proposed
:} :solutions were clearly inappropriate. Whitlam might have guessed that
:} :the Coalition would crack, but he could not be sure of it. His scheme
:} :to get the banks to guarantee Commonwealth expenditure was wildly
:} :improbable.
:} But Whitlam could not advise an election unless supply was assured.
:Rubbish. He had umpteen grounds for a trigger under s57. He could have
:advised a double dissolution at any time. In actual fact, this is precisely
:what Malcolm Fraser did.
But Gough didn't have supply to cover the period up till the writs were
returned. Mal did, but only because of Whitlam's error/acquisecence.
:} What else could he do? That's why the Senate power is essentially
:} a suicide bomb. I can only lead to a crisis, and the outcome of
:} the crisis depends on the GG and PM ultimately being altruistic.
:} It seems unwise for the nation to depend on that.
:We've got to have *someone* sitting in the chairs. We elect and appoint men
:of judgement to make decisions. You have a better alternative, maybe?
One you seem to agree with. Remove the power to delay supply bills which
are in line with a previously passed budget from the Senate. Then there
is no crisis, and no need for the GG to intervene. Either you trust the
electoral process to produce a Government or you don't.
:} :} Actually, he made a third decision. He decided to consult
:} :} off-the-record with the Chief Justice of the very Court which
:} :} would have heard any case arising from his actions.
:} :He got no opinion from the Government, he was aware of the Coalition's
:} :opinion, so he sought a third and presumably impartial view.
:} There's no way that anyone could have described Barwick by as impartial.
:As the Chief Justice of the High Court, his view was presumably impartial.
Only by a simpleton. And only if you could not imagine the matter coming
before a Court for its constitutionality to be determined.
:} It wasn't as if Kerr could say he didn't have a political background
:} either. So why not ask a constitutional lawyer - no shortage of them...
:} He was looking for the advice he got, and looking for a way to spread
:} the blame for his decisions.
:I don't think so. He wasn't too keen about highlighting the role of
:Barwick, let alone looking to spread the blame. As it happened, blame was
:allocated by the voters.
Or otherwise Fraser wouldn't have triggered it.
Chris Maltby
:I wrote:
:} So tell us how the people can make their decision when there is no
:} money to pay the people who count the votes? Either you give the GG
:} the unilateral power to authorise temporary supply, or you take away
:} the power of the senate to block or filibuster supply bills. Or tell
:} me of a third way...
So Peter Mackay writes:
:Expenditure to pay electoral workers doesn't depend on supply nor some sort
:of election bill. In 1975, the money was available, but some expenditure
:had not been appropriated.
All expenditure has to be appropriated before it can be expended.
The point is that the the operations of government could not continue
beyond the 30th of November without an Appropriation Act. And there
was no way that an election could have been called, held, counted,
the writs returned and the new Parliament sitting to pass the
Appropriation Act in 20 days. So blocking supply to force an
election is just a constitutional suicide bomb. The calling of the
election eliminates the ability to pass supply; both houses need
to be sitting to do it, neither can have been dissolved.
Clearly Whitlam couldn't advise a double dissolution as he had no
supply to cover the election period. Fraser was only able to call
the election because the parliament had by then passed the supply
bills. Whitlam could have prevented that, but didn't. But suppose
he had held up supply in the House and then had a no confidence
motion carried against Fraser. Fraser cannot advise an election
because he can't guarantee supply either, but Whitlam (when
reappointed) could arrange for the bills which have now passed the
Senate to complete. No election would then be required unless the
GG were to unilaterally dissolve parliament - and why would he?
Which all leads up to this point. Blocking supply in the Senate
cannot force the resignation of the government nor any election.
The Senate has the power to disrupt a Government's legislative
program; which is why we have the Double Dissolution provisions in
the Constitution. But it can never make sense for an Appropriation
Bill to become a DD trigger, and thus it makes good sense to remove
the Senate's power to delay or reject them. Ok?
Peter Mackay
} :} :}Peter Mackay said:
} :} :} :In 1975 neither Whitlam nor Fraser looked like budging, but the
} :} :} :crisis was escalating. For better or worse the Governor-General
} :} :} :made a decision which resolved the situation (albeit at the cost
} :} :} : of a lot of bitterness).
}
} :} :And I wrote:
} :} :} He made two decisions. The first was to decide to act.
}
} :} So Peter Mackay said:
} :} :And that was his job.
}
} :So I wrote:
} :} That is clearly a matter of debate.
}
} Now Peter Mackay writes:
} :Fine. Whitlam was proposing a hare-brained scheme to get the banks to
} :guarantee Commonwealth loans. Of dubious legality, and even more dubious
} :practicality. He was also proposing a half-senate election eighteen
months
} :early, with no constitutional authority. Clearly neither of these
proposals
} :could guarantee that the mechanisms of government would continue to
operate
} :pending a resolution.
}
} The obvious alternative was to wait until the Parliament itself resolved
} the problem.
The problem being that there was no guarantee that this would ever happen
before the functions of government ground to a halt over lack of money.
Money in some votes *had* run out when Sir John acted.
}
} :Sir John Kerr was *forced* to act. Even if he did no more than decide to
} :accept Whitlam's advice and wear the consequences, that was a decision.
} :Clearly he was going to have to make a decision -- he couldn't bury his
} :head in the sand and pretend it was all a bad dream, because he was the
} :only person in the world with the power to resolve the crisis (with the
} :exception of Malcolm Fraser, and a viceregal instruction to pass Supply
} :exceeded his authority(.
}
} That's the nub of the problem. He needs a parliament to pass the supply
} bills, otherwise he can dissolve it any time he feels like it.
}
} :} :} The second was to decide that the action would be to dismiss the PM
} :} :} who still enjoyed the confidence of the House.
}
} :} :But who would not advise him to resolve the crisis, and whose
proposed
} :} :solutions were clearly inappropriate. Whitlam might have guessed that
} :} :the Coalition would crack, but he could not be sure of it. His scheme
} :} :to get the banks to guarantee Commonwealth expenditure was wildly
} :} :improbable.
}
} :} But Whitlam could not advise an election unless supply was assured.
}
} :Rubbish. He had umpteen grounds for a trigger under s57. He could have
} :advised a double dissolution at any time. In actual fact, this is
precisely
} :what Malcolm Fraser did.
}
} But Gough didn't have supply to cover the period up till the writs were
} returned. Mal did, but only because of Whitlam's error/acquisecence.
Mmm, good point. If Gough had got up and said he would advise a double
dissolution election *if* Mal passed supply, then that would probably have
been good enough for Mal to unleash his Senate dogs. Supply would have been
passed, Gough would have gone to the people as Prime Minister and his
predictable defeat might have been somewhat less devastating.
But then again, Gough wasn't an idiot, and he wasn't going to call an
election that he knew he would lose. He and Sir John should have sat down
together and nutted out a solution. The tragedy of 1975 is not that Sir
John acted, but that he acted in the way he did. I'm no great fan of
Whitlam, but it was hardly fair on him to be knocked over the head with the
Constitution when he wasn't expecting it. No wonder he was groggy for a
couple of hours.
}
} :} What else could he do? That's why the Senate power is essentially
} :} a suicide bomb. I can only lead to a crisis, and the outcome of
} :} the crisis depends on the GG and PM ultimately being altruistic.
} :} It seems unwise for the nation to depend on that.
}
} :We've got to have *someone* sitting in the chairs. We elect and appoint
men
} :of judgement to make decisions. You have a better alternative, maybe?
}
} One you seem to agree with. Remove the power to delay supply bills which
} are in line with a previously passed budget from the Senate. Then there
} is no crisis, and no need for the GG to intervene. Either you trust the
} electoral process to produce a Government or you don't.
Fair enough. I don't want a re-run of 1975. Fair enough to delay or block
legislation of a non-routine nature, with the knowledge that s57 is
available, but when the bill is a routine one and the country will face a
crisis if it is not passed, well then you've got to change the system.
So why hasn't anybody done this in the twenty years since? Mal moved to
plug the Colston/Field loophole in 1977, and the population backed him
overwhelmingly. Why didn't he run the Supply thing past them at the same
time?
}
} :} :} Actually, he made a third decision. He decided to consult
} :} :} off-the-record with the Chief Justice of the very Court which
} :} :} would have heard any case arising from his actions.
}
} :} :He got no opinion from the Government, he was aware of the
Coalition's
} :} :opinion, so he sought a third and presumably impartial view.
}
} :} There's no way that anyone could have described Barwick by as
impartial.
}
} :As the Chief Justice of the High Court, his view was presumably
impartial.
}
} Only by a simpleton. And only if you could not imagine the matter coming
} before a Court for its constitutionality to be determined.
By which time the money would have long dried up. Let's face it, Sir John
received *no* opinion from the government, and he *knew* that he'd have to
make a decision.
}
} :} It wasn't as if Kerr could say he didn't have a political background
} :} either. So why not ask a constitutional lawyer - no shortage of
them...
} :} He was looking for the advice he got, and looking for a way to spread
} :} the blame for his decisions.
}
} :I don't think so. He wasn't too keen about highlighting the role of
} :Barwick, let alone looking to spread the blame. As it happened, blame
was
} :allocated by the voters.
}
} Or otherwise Fraser wouldn't have triggered it.
Well, there it is. Gough won in 1974, but went downhill after that. You
can't blame Malcolm Fraser for Whitlam's incompetence.
Peter Mackay
} :I wrote:
} :} So tell us how the people can make their decision when there is no
} :} money to pay the people who count the votes? Either you give the GG
} :} the unilateral power to authorise temporary supply, or you take away
} :} the power of the senate to block or filibuster supply bills. Or tell
} :} me of a third way...
}
} So Peter Mackay writes:
} :Expenditure to pay electoral workers doesn't depend on supply nor some
sort
} :of election bill. In 1975, the money was available, but some expenditure
} :had not been appropriated.
}
} All expenditure has to be appropriated before it can be expended.
Sure. And some legislation contains its own funding. Supply Bills typically
do not contain funding for the next election, nor is it contained in some
sort of Election Bill -- the authority for electoral spending is in the
Commonwealth Electoral Act. Call an election, and the money is
automatically appropriated.
Social Security, even in 1975, was self-funding. Supply might not have
passed, but pensions would have been paid.
} The point is that the the operations of government could not continue
} beyond the 30th of November without an Appropriation Act. And there
} was no way that an election could have been called, held, counted,
} the writs returned and the new Parliament sitting to pass the
} Appropriation Act in 20 days. So blocking supply to force an
} election is just a constitutional suicide bomb. The calling of the
} election eliminates the ability to pass supply; both houses need
} to be sitting to do it, neither can have been dissolved.
}
} Clearly Whitlam couldn't advise a double dissolution as he had no
} supply to cover the election period. Fraser was only able to call
} the election because the parliament had by then passed the supply
} bills. Whitlam could have prevented that, but didn't. But suppose
} he had held up supply in the House and then had a no confidence
} motion carried against Fraser. Fraser cannot advise an election
} because he can't guarantee supply either, but Whitlam (when
} reappointed) could arrange for the bills which have now passed the
} Senate to complete. No election would then be required unless the
} GG were to unilaterally dissolve parliament - and why would he?
Precisely. Whitlam could have won the day. But he didn't because he wasn't
thinking straight, having just been belted over the head. If Sir John had
made his intentions clear well ahead of time, then the crisis could have
been controlled, even if Gough did not control the Senate.
}
} Which all leads up to this point. Blocking supply in the Senate
} cannot force the resignation of the government nor any election.
} The Senate has the power to disrupt a Government's legislative
} program; which is why we have the Double Dissolution provisions in
} the Constitution. But it can never make sense for an Appropriation
} Bill to become a DD trigger, and thus it makes good sense to remove
} the Senate's power to delay or reject them. Ok?
Well, yes, but not exactly for the reasons you mention. The effect of
blocking Supply has been somewhat reduced in recent years, because a lot of
legislation contains its own appropriation. Block Supply and you *can*
force a crisis for which an election is the best way out. Not even the
Constitution can dictate which way Senators vote.
Chris Maltby
:I wrote, appropos a solution to the supply dilemma:
:} Remove the power to delay supply bills which are in line with a
:} previously passed budget from the Senate. Then there is no crisis,
:} and no need for the GG to intervene. Either you trust the electoral
:} process to produce a Government or you don't.
So Peter Mackay writes:
:Fair enough. I don't want a re-run of 1975. Fair enough to delay or block
:legislation of a non-routine nature, with the knowledge that s57 is
:available, but when the bill is a routine one and the country will face a
:crisis if it is not passed, well then you've got to change the system.
Quite.
:So why hasn't anybody done this in the twenty years since? Mal moved to
:plug the Colston/Field loophole in 1977, and the population backed him
:overwhelmingly. Why didn't he run the Supply thing past them at the same
:time?
Politics. It'd be too easy for the Liberals to make political capital
out of any ALP initiative (witness 1988) and too dangerous for the Libs
to advance it themselves - self-incrimination. Meantime, so long as
everyone knows it'll never work again, it'll never happen again either.
Maybe this government advancing a fixed 4 year term amendment would help...
<snip>
:} Or otherwise Fraser wouldn't have triggered it.
:Well, there it is. Gough won in 1974, but went downhill after that. You
:can't blame Malcolm Fraser for Whitlam's incompetence.
But there's plenty of governments who have been returned after trailing
mid-term. You might argue that the fact that governments can afford to
be unpopular for their first 2 years is one of the strengths of our
political system. Wouldn't the ALP have loved an election in November
of last year? If the senate had been able to force one, would we now
be saying that it was justified by the result, and that Howard was
clearly a danger to good government, blah, blah, blah...
Peter Mackay
In article <34f669b5...@news.zeta.org.au>,
lo...@my.sig (Geoff) wrote:
} It probably worked. Having done things that should have seen the ALP
} disappear into the dustbin of history, he at least gave the true
} believers a cause.
Just waiting for the old bugger to die so I can piss on his grave.